__________________________________________________________________
Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 13: Revelation-Stock
Creator(s): Herbermann, Charles George (1840-1916)
Print Basis: 1907-1913
Rights: From online edition Copyright 2003 by K. Knight, used by
permission
CCEL Subjects: All; Reference
LC Call no: BX841.C286
LC Subjects:
Christian Denominations
Roman Catholic Church
Dictionaries. Encyclopedias
__________________________________________________________________
THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
AN INTERNATIONAL WORK OF REFERENCE
ON THE CONSTITUTION, DOCTRINE,
DISCIPLINE, AND HISTORY OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH
EDITED BY
CHARLES G. HERBERMANN, Ph.D., LL.D.
EDWARD A. PACE, Ph.D., D.D. CONDE B PALLEN, Ph.D., LL.D.
THOMAS J. SHAHAN, D.D. JOHN J. WYNNE, S.J.
ASSISTED BY NUMEROUS COLLABORATORS
IN FIFTEEN VOLUMES
VOLUME 13
Revelation to Stock
New York: ROBERT APPLETON COMPANY
Imprimatur
JOHN M. FARLEY
ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________________________________
Revelation
Revelation
I. MEANING OF REVELATION
Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truth by
God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the
ordinary course of nature. The truths revealed may be such as
are otherwise inaccessible to the human mind -- mysteries, which
even when revealed, the intellect of man is incapable of fully
penetrating. But Revelation is not restricted to these. God may
see fit to employ supernatural means to affirm truths, the
discovery of which is not per se beyond the powers of reason.
The essence of Revelation lies in the fact that it is the direct
speech of God to man. The mode of communication, however, may be
mediate. Revelation does not cease to be such if God's message
is delivered to us by a prophet, who alone is the recipient of
the immediate communication. Such in brief is the account of
Revelation given in the Constitution "De Fide Catholica" of the
Vatican Council. The Decree "Lamentabili" (3 July, 1907), by its
condemnation of a contrary proposition, declares that the dogmas
which the Church proposes as revealed are "truths which have
come down to us from heaven" (veritates e coelo delapsoe) and
not "an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind
has acquired by its own strenuous efforts" (prop., 22). It will
be seen that Revelation as thus explained differs clearly from:
+ inspiration such as is bestowed by God on the author of a
sacred book; for this, while involving a special illumination
of the mind in virtue of which the recipient conceives such
thoughts as God desires him to commit to writing, does not
necessarily suppose a supernatural communication of these
truths;
+ from the illustrations which God may bestow from time to time
upon any of the faithful to bring home to the mind the import
of some truth of religion hitherto obscurely grasped; and,
+ from the Divine assistance by which the pope when acting as
the supreme teacher of the Church, is preserved from all error
as to faith or morals. The function of this assistance is
purely negative: it need not carry with it any positive gift
of light to the mind. Much of the confusion in which the
discussion of Revelation in non-Catholic works is involved
arises from the neglect to distinguish it from one or other of
these.
During the past century the Church has been called on to reject
as erroneous several views of Revelation irreconcilable with
Catholic belief. Three of these may here be noted.
+ The view of Anton Guenther (1783-1863). This writer denied
that Revelation could include mysteries strictly so-called,
inasmuch as the human intellect is capable of penetrating to
the full all revealed truth. He taught, further, that the
meaning to be attached to revealed doctrines is undergoing
constant change as human knowledge grows and man's mind
develops; so that the dogmatic formul which are now true will
gradually cease to be so. His writings were put on the Index
in 1857, and his erroneous propositions definitively condemned
in the decrees of the Vatican Council.
+ the Modernist view (Loisy, Tyrrell). According to this school,
there is no such thing as Revelation in the sense of a direct
communication from God to man. The human soul reaching up
towards the unknowable God is ever endeavouring to interpret
its sentiments in intellectual formul . The formul it thus
frames are our ecclesiastical dogmas. These can but symbolize
the Unknowable; they can give us no real knowledge regarding
it. Such an error is manifestly subversive of all belief, and
was explicitly condemned by the Decree "Lamentabili" and the
Encyclical "Pascendi" (8 Sept., 1907).
+ With the view just mentioned is closely connected the
Pragmatist view of M. Leroy ("Dogme et Critique", Paris, 2nd
ed. 1907). Like the Modernists, he sees in revealed dogmas
simply the results of spiritual experience, but holds their
value to lie not in the fact that they symbolize the
Unknowable, but that they have practical value in pointing the
way by which we may best enjoy experience of the Divine. This
view was condemned in the same documents as the last
mentioned.
II. POSSIBILITY OF REVELATION
The possibility of Revelation as above explained has been
strenuously denied from various points of view during the last
century. For this reason the Church held it necessary to issue
special decrees on the subject in the Vatican Council. Its
antagonists may be divided into two classes according to the
different standpoints from which they direct their attack, viz:
+ Rationalists (under this class we include both Deist and
Agnostic writers). Those who adopt this standpoint rely in the
main on two fundamental objections: they either urge that the
miraculous is impossible, and that Revelation involves
miraculous interposition on the part of the Deity; or they
appeal to the autonomy of reason, which it is maintained can
only accept as truths the results of its own activities.
+ Immanentists. To this class may be assigned all those whose
objections are based on Kantian and Hegelian doctrines as to
the subjective character of all our knowledge. The views of
these writers frequently involve a purely pantheistic
doctrine. But even those who repudiate pantheism, in place of
the personal God, Ruler, and Judge of the world, whom
Christianity teaches, substitute the vague notion of the
"Spirit" immanent in all men, and regard all religious creeds
as the attempts of the human soul to find expression for its
inward experience. Hence no religion, whether pagan or
Christian, is wholly false; but none can claim to be a message
from God free from any admixture of error. (Cf. Sabatier,
"Esquisse", etc., Bk. I, cap. ii.) Here too the autonomy of
reason is invoked as fatal to the doctrine of Revelation
properly so called. In the face of these objections, it is
evident that the question of the possibility of Revelation is
at present one of the most vital portions of Christian
apologetic.
If the existence of a personal God be once established, the
physical possibility at least of Revelation is undeniable. God,
who has endowed man with means to communicate his thoughts to
his fellows, cannot be destitute of the power to communicate His
own thoughts to us. [Martineau, it is true, denies that we
possess faculties either to receive or to authenticate a divine
revelation concerning the past or the future (Seat of Authority
in Religion, p. 311); but such an assertion is arbitrary and
extravagant in the extreme.] However, numerous difficulties have
been urged on grounds other than that of physical possibility.
In estimating their value it seems desirable to distinguish
three aspects of Revelation, viz: as it makes known to us;
(1) truths of the natural law,
(2) mysteries of the faith,
(3) positive precepts, e.g. regarding Divine worship.
(1) The revelation of truths of the natural law is certainly not
inconsistent with God's wisdom. God so created man as to bestow
on him endowments amply sufficient for him to attain his last
end. Had it been otherwise, the creation would have been
imperfect. If over and above this He decreed to make the
attainment of beatitude yet easier for man by placing within his
reach a far simpler and far more certain way of knowing the law
on the observance of which his fate depended, this is an
argument for the Divine generosity; it does not disprove the
Divine wisdom. To assume, with certain Rationalists, that
exceptional intervention can only be explained on the ground
that God was unable to embrace His ultimate design in His
original scheme is a mere petitio principii. Further, the
doctrine of original sin supplies an additional reason for such
a revelation of the natural law. That doctrine teaches us that
man by the abuse of his free will has rendered his attainment of
salvation difficult. Though his intellectual faculties are not
radically vitiated, yet his grasp of truth is weakened; his
recognition of the moral law is constantly clouded by doubts and
questionings. Revelation gives to his mind the certainty he had
lost, and so far repairs the evils consequent on the catastrophe
which had befallen him.
(2) Still more difficulty has been felt regarding mysteries. It
is freely asserted that a mystery is something repugnant to
reason, and therefore something intrinsically impossible. This
objection rests on a mere misunderstanding of what is signified
by a mystery. In theological terminology a conception involves a
mystery when it is such that the natural faculties of the mind
are unable to see how its elements can coalesce. This does not
imply anything contrary to reason. A conception is only contrary
to reason when the mind can recognize that its elements are
mutually exclusive, and therefore involve a contradiction in
terms. A more subtle objection is that urged by Dr. J. Caird, to
the effect that every truth that can be partially communicated
to the mind by analogies is ultimately capable of being fully
grasped by the understanding. "Of all such representations,
unless they are purely illusory, it must hold good that
implicitly and in undeveloped form they contain rational thought
and therefore thought which human intelligence may ultimately
free from its sensuous veil. . . . Nothing that is absolutely
inscrutable to reason can be made known to faith" (Philosophy of
Religion, p. 71). The objection rests on a wholly exaggerated
view regarding the powers of the human intellect. The cognitive
faculty of any nature is proportionate to its grade in the scale
of being. The intelligence of a finite intellect can only
penetrate a finite object; it is incapable of comprehending the
Infinite. The finite types through which the Infinite is made
known to it can never under any circumstances lead to more than
analogous knowledge. It is further frequently urged that the
revelation of what the mind cannot understand would be an act of
violence to the intellect; and that this faculty can only accept
those truths whose intrinsic reasonableness it recognizes. This
assertion, based on the alleged autonomy of reason, can only be
met with denial. The function of the intellect is to recognize
and admit any truth which is adequately presented to it, whether
that truth be guaranteed by internal or by external criteria.
The reason is not deprived of its legitimate activity because
the criteria are external. It finds ample scope in weighing the
arguments for the credibility of the fact asserted. The
existence of mysteries in the Christian religion was expressly
taught by the Vatican Council (De Fide Cath., cap. ii, can. ii).
"If anyone shall say that no mysteries properly so called are
contained in the Divine revelation, but that all the dogmas of
the faith can be understood and proved from natural principles
by human reason duly cultivated -- let him be anathema."
(3) The older (Deist) School of Rationalists denied the
possibility of a Divine revelation imposing any laws other than
those which natural religion enjoins on man. These writers
regarded natural religion as, so to speak, a political
constitution determining the Divine government of the universe,
and held that God could only act as its terms prescribed. This
error likewise was proscribed at the same time (De Fide Cath.,
cap. ii, can. ii). "If any one shall say that it is impossible
or that it is inexpedient that man should be instructed
regarding God and the worship to be paid to Him by Divine
revelation -- let him be anathema."
It can hardly be questioned that the "autonomy of reasons"
furnishes the main source of the difficulties at present felt
against Revelation in the Christian sense. It seems desirable to
indicate very briefly the various ways in which that principle
is understood. It is explained by M. Blondel, an eminent member
of the Immanentist School, as signifying that "nothing can enter
into a man which does not proceed from him, and which does not
correspond in some manner to an interior need of expansion; and
that neither in the sphere of historic facts nor of traditional
doctrine, nor of commands imposed by authority, can any truth
rank as valid for a man or any precept as obligatory, unless it
be in some way autonomous and autochthonous" (Lettre sur les
exigences, etc., p. 601). Although M. Blondel has in his own
case reconciled this principle with the acceptance of Catholic
belief, yet it may readily be seen that it affords an easy
ground for the denial not merely of the possibility of external
Revelation, but of the whole historic basis of Christianity. The
origin of this erroneous doctrine is to be found in the fact
that within the sphere of the natural speculative reason, truths
which are received purely on external authority, and which are
in no way connected with principles already admitted, can
scarcely be said to form part of our knowledge. Science asks for
the inner reason of things and can make no use of truths save in
so far as it can reach the principles from which they flow. The
extension of this to religious truths is an error directly
traceable to the assumption of the eighteenth-century
philosophers that there are no religious truths save those which
the human intellect can attain unaided. The principle is,
however, sometimes applied with a less extensive signification.
It may be understood to involve no more than that reason cannot
be compelled to admit any religious doctrine or any moral
obligation merely because they possess extrinsic guarantees of
truth; they must in every case be able to justify their validity
on intrinsic grounds. Thus Prof. J. Caird writes: "Neither moral
nor religious ideas can be simply transferred to the human
spirit in the form of fact, nor can they be verified by any
evidence outside of or lower than themselves" (Fundamental Ideas
of Christianity, p. 31). A somewhat different meaning again is
implied in the canon of the Vatican Council in which the right
of the intellect to claim absolute independence (autonomy) is
denied. "If anyone shall say that human reason is independent in
such wise that faith cannot be commanded it by God -- let him be
anathema" (De Fide Cath., cap. iii, can. i). This canon is
directed against the position maintained as already noted by the
older Rationalists and the Deists, that human reason is amply
sufficient without exterior assistance to attain to absolute
truth in all matters of religion (cf. Vacant, "Etudes
Theologiques", I, 572; II, 387).
III. NECESSITY OF REVELATION
Can it be said that Revelation is necessary to man? There can be
no question as to its necessity, if it be admitted that God
destines man to attain a supernatural beatitude which surpasses
the exigencies of his natural endowments. In that case God must
needs reveal alike the existence of that supernatural end and
the means by which we are to attain it. But is Revelation
necessary even in order that man should observe the precepts of
the natural law? If our race be viewed in its present condition
as history displays it, the answer can only be that it is,
morally speaking, impossible for men unassisted by Revelation,
to attain by their natural powers such a knowledge of that law
as is sufficient to the right ordering of life. In other words,
Revelation is morally necessary. Absolute necessity we do not
assert. Man, Catholic theology teaches, possesses the requisite
faculties to discover the natural law. Luther indeed asserted
that man's intellect had become hopelessly obscured by original
sin, so that even natural truth was beyond his reach. And the
Traditionalists of the nineteenth century (Bautain, Bonnetty,
etc.) also fell into error, teaching that man was incapable of
arriving at moral and religious truth apart from Revelation. The
Church, on the contrary, recognizes the capacity of human reason
and grants that here and there pagans may have existed, who had
freed themselves from prevalent errors, and who had attained to
such a knowledge of the natural law as would suffice to guide
them to the attainment of beatitude. But she teaches
nevertheless that this can only be the case as regards a few,
and that for the bulk of mankind Revelation is necessary. That
this is so may be shown both from the facts of history and from
the nature of the case. As regards the testimony of history, it
is notorious that even the most civilized of pagan races have
fallen into the grossest errors regarding the natural law; and
from these it may safely be asserted they would never have
emerged. Certainly the schools of philosophy would not have
enabled them to do so; for many of these denied even such
fundamental principles of the natural law as the personality of
God and the freedom of the will. Again, by the very nature of
the case, the difficulties involved in the attainment of the
requisite knowledge are insuperable. For men to be able to
attain such a knowledge of the natural law as will enable them
to order their lives rightly, the truths of that law must be so
plain that the mass of men can discover them without long delay,
and possess a knowledge of them which will be alike free from
uncertainty and secure from serious error. No reasonable man
will maintain that in the case of the greater part of mankind
this is possible. Even the most vital truths are called in
question and are met by serious objections. The separation of
truth from error is a work involving time and labour. For this
the majority of men have neither inclination nor opportunity.
Apart from the security which Revelation gives they would reject
an obligation both irksome and uncertain. It results that a
revelation even of the natural law is for man in his present
state a moral necessity.
IV. CRITERIA OF REVELATION
The fact that Revelation is not merely possible but morally
necessary is in itself a strong argument for the existence of a
revelation, and imposes on all men the strict obligation of
examining the credentials of a religion which presents itself
with prima facie marks of truth. On the other hand if God has
conferred a revelation on men, it stands to reason that He must
have attached to it plain and evident criteria enabling even the
unlettered to recognize His message for what it is, and to
distinguish it from all false claimants.
The criteria of Revelation are either external or internal: (1)
External criteria consist in certain signs attached to the
revelation as a divine testimony to its truth, e.g., miracles.
(2) Internal criteria are those which are found in the nature of
the doctrine itself in the manner in which it was presented to
the world, and in the effects which it produces on the soul.
These are distinguished into negative and positive criteria. (a)
The immunity of the alleged revelation from any teaching,
speculative or moral, which is manifestly erroneous or
self-contradictory, the absence of all fraud on the part of
those who deliver it to the world, provide negative internal
criteria. (b) Positive internal criteria are of various kinds.
One such is found in the beneficent effects of the doctrine and
in its power to meet even the highest aspirations which man can
frame. Another consists in the internal conviction felt by the
soul as to the truth of the doctrine (Suarez, "De Fide", IV,
sect. 5, n. 9.) In the last century there was in certain schools
of thought a manifest tendency to deny the value of all external
criteria. This was largely due to the Rationalist polemic
against miracles. Not a few non-Catholic divines anxious to make
terms with the enemy adopted this attitude. They allowed that
miracles are useless as a foundation for faith, and that they
form on the contrary one of the chief difficulties which lie in
faith's path. Faith, they admitted, must be presupposed before
the miracle can be accepted. Hence these writers held the sole
criterion of faith to lie in inward experience -- in the
testimony of the Spirit. Thus Schleiermacher says: "We renounce
altogether any attempt to demonstrate the truth and the
necessity of the Christian religion. On the contrary we assume
that every Christian before he commences inquiries of this kind
is already convinced that no other form of religion but the
Christian can harmonize with his piety" (Glaubenslehre, n. 11).
The Traditionalists by denying the power of human reason to test
the grounds of faith were driven to fall back on the same
criterion (cf. Lamennais, "Pensees Diverses", p. 488).
This position is altogether untenable. The testimony afforded by
inward experience is undoubtedly not to be neglected. Catholic
doctors have always recognized its value. But its force is
limited to the individual who is the subject of it. It cannot be
employed as a criterion valid for all; for its absence is no
proof that the doctrine is not true. Moreover, of all the
criteria it is the one with regard to which there is most
possibility of deception. When truth mingled with error is
presented to the mind, it often happens that the whole teaching,
false and true alike, is believed to have a Divine guarantee,
because the soul has recognized and welcomed the truth of some
one doctrine, e.g., the Atonement. Taken alone and apart from
objective proof it conveys but a probability that the revelation
is true. Hence the Vatican Council expressly condemns the error
of those who teach it to be the only criterion (De Fide Cath.,
cap. iii, can. iii).
The perfect agreement of a religious doctrine with the teachings
of reason and natural law, its power to satisfy, and more than
satisfy, the highest aspirations of man, its beneficent
influence both as regards public and private life, provide us
with a more trustworthy test. This is a criterion which has
often been applied with great force on behalf of the claims of
the Catholic Church to be the sole guardian of God's Revelation.
These qualities indeed appertain in so transcendent a degree to
the teaching of the Church, that the argument must needs carry
conviction to an earnest and truth-seeking mind. Another
criterion which at first sight bears some resemblance to this
claims a mention here. It is based upon the theory of Immanence
and has of recent years been strenuously advocated by certain of
the less extreme members of the Modernist School. These writers
urge that the vital needs of the soul imperatively demand, as
their necessary complement, Divine co-operation, supernatural
grace, and even the supreme magisterium of the Church. To these
needs the Catholic religion alone corresponds. And this
correspondence with our vital needs is, they hold, the one sure
criterion of truth. The theory is altogether inconsistent with
Catholic dogma. It supposes that the Christian Revelation and
the gift of grace are not free gifts from God, but something of
which the nature of man is absolutely exigent; and without which
it would be incomplete. It is a return to the errors of Baius.
(Denz. 1021, etc.)
While the Church, as we have said, is far from undervaluing
internal criteria, she has always regarded external criteria as
the most easily recognizable and the most decisive. Hence the
Vatican Council teaches: "In order that the obedience of our
faith might be agreeable to reason, God has willed that to the
internal aids of the Holy Spirit, there should be joined
external proofs of His Revelation, viz: Divine works (facta
divina), especially miracles and prophecy, which inasmuch as
they manifestly display the omnipotence and the omniscience of
God are most certain signs of a Divine revelation and are suited
to the understanding of all" (De Fide Cath., cap. iii). As an
instance of a work evidently Divine and yet other than miracle
or prophecy, the council instances the Catholic Church, which,
"by reason of the marvellous manner of its propagation, its
surprising sanctity, its inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good
works, its catholic unity and its invincible stability, is a
mighty and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefragable
testimony to its own divine legation" (l. c.). The truth of the
teaching of the council regarding external criteria is plain to
any unprejudiced mind. Granted the presence of the negative
criteria, external guarantees establish the Divine origin of a
revelation as nothing else can do. They are, so to say, a seal
affixed by the hand of God Himself, and authenticating the work
as His. (For a fuller treatment of their apologetic value, and
for a discussion of objections, see MIRACLES; APOLOGETICS.)
V. THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION
It remains here to distinguish the Christian Revelation or
"deposit of faith" from what are termed private revelations.
This distinction is of importance: for while the Church
recognizes that God has spoken to His servants in every age, and
still continues thus to favour chosen souls, she is careful to
distinguish these revelations from the Revelation which has been
committed to her charge, and which she proposes to all her
members for their acceptance. That Revelation was given in its
entirety to Our Lord and His Apostles. After the death of the
last of the twelve it could receive no increment. It was, as the
Church calls it, a deposit -- "the faith once delivered to the
saints" (Jude, 2) -- for which the Church was to "contend" but
to which she could add nothing. Thus, whenever there has been
question of defining a doctrine, whether at Nicaea, at Trent, or
at the Vatican, the sole point of debate has been as to whether
the doctrine is found in Scripture or in Apostolic tradition.
The gift of Divine assistance (see I), sometimes confounded with
Revelation by the less instructed of anti-Catholic writers,
merely preserves the supreme pontiff from error in defining the
faith; it does not enable him to add jot or tittle to it. All
subsequent revelations conferred by God are known as private
revelations, for the reason that they are not directed to the
whole Church but are for the good of individual members alone,
They may indeed be a legitimate object for our faith; but that
will depend on the evidence in each particular case. The Church
does not propose them to us as part of her message. It is true
that in certain cases she has given her approbation to certain
private revelations. This, however, only signifies:
+ that there is nothing in them contrary to the Catholic Faith
or to the moral law, and,
+ that there are sufficient indications of their truth to
justify the faithful in attaching credence to them without
being guilty of superstition or of imprudence.
It may however be further asked, whether the Christian
Revelation does not receive increment through the development of
doctrine. During the last half of the nineteenth century the
question of doctrinal development was widely debated. Owing to
Guenther's erroneous teaching that the doctrines of the faith
assume a new sense as human science progresses, the Vatican
Council declared once for all that the meaning of the Church's
dogmas is immutable (De Fide Cath., cap. iv, can. iii). On the
other hand it explicitly recognizes that there is a legitimate
mode of development, and cites to that effect (op. cit., cap.
iv) the words of Vincent of Lirins: "Let understanding science
and wisdom [regarding the Church's doctrine] progress and make
large increase in each and in all, in the individual and in the
whole Church, as ages and centuries advance: but let it be
solely in its own order, retaining, that is, the same dogma, the
same sense, the same import" (Commonit. 28). Two of the most
eminent theological writers of the period, Cardinal Franzelin
and Cardinal Newman, have on very different lines dealt with the
progress and nature of this development. Cardinal Franzelin in
his "De Divina Traditione et Scriptura" (pt. XXII VI) has
principally in view the Hegelian theories of Guenther. He
consequently lays the chief stress on the identity at all points
of the intellectual datum, and explains development almost
exclusively as a process of logical deduction. Cardinal Newman
wrote his "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" in
the course of the two years (1843 45) immediately preceding his
reception into the Catholic Church. He was called on to deal
with different adversaries, viz., the Protestants who justified
their separation from the main body of Christians on the ground
that Rome had corrupted primitive teaching by a series of
additions. In that work he examines in detail the difference
between a corruption and a development. He shows how a true and
fertile idea is endowed with a vital and assimilative energy of
its own, in virtue of which, without undergoing the least
substantive change, it attains to an ever completer expression,
as the course of time brings it into contact with new aspects of
truth or forces it into collision with new errors: the life of
the idea is shown to be analogous to an organic development. He
provides a series of tests distinguishing a true development
from a corruption, chief among them being the preservation of
type, and the continuity of principles; and then, applying the
tests to the case of the additions of Roman teaching, shows that
these have the marks not of corruptions but of true and
legitimate developments. The theory, though less scholastic in
its form than that of Franzelin, is in perfect conformity with
orthodox belief. Newman no less than his Jesuit contemporary
teaches that the whole doctrine, alike in its later as in its
earlier forms, was contained in the original revelation given to
the Church by Our Lord and His Apostles, and that its identity
is guaranteed to us by the infallible magisterium of the Church.
The claim of certain Modernist writers that their views on the
evolution of dogma were connected with Newman's theory of
development is the merest figment.
OTTIGER, Theologia fundamentalis (Freiburg, 1897); VACANT,
Etudes Th ologiques sur la Concile du Vatican (Paris, 1895);
LEBACHELET, De l apolog tique traditionelle et l apolog tique
moderne. (Paris, 1897); DE BROGLIE, Religion et Critique (Paris,
1906); BLONDEL, Lettre sur les Exigences de la Pens e moderne en
mati re apolog tique in Annales de la Philos: Chr tienne (Paris.
1896). On private revelations: SUAREZ, De Fide, disp. III, sect.
10; FRANZELIN, De Scriptura et Traditione, Th. xxii (Rome,
1870); POULAIN, Graces of Interior Prayer, pt. IV, tr. (London,
1910). On development of doctrine: BAINVEL, De magisterio vivo
et traditione (Paris, 1905); VACANT, op. cit., II, p. 281 seq.;
PINARD, art. Dogme in Dict. Apolog tique de la Foi Catholique,
ed. D AL S (Paris, 1910); O DWYER, Cardinal Newman and the
Encyclical Pascendi (London, 1908).
Among those who from one point of view or another have
controverted the Christian doctrine of Revelation the following
may be mentioned: PAINE, Age of Reason (ed. 1910), 1 30; F. W.
NEWMAN, Phases of Faith (4th ed., London, 1854); SABATIER,
Esquisse d une philosophie de la religion, I, ii (Paris, 1902);
PFLEIDERER, Religionsphilosophie auf geschichtlicher Grundlage
(Berlin, 1896), 493 seq.; LOISY, Autour d un petit livre (Paris,
1903), 192 sqq.; WILSON, art. Revelation and Modern Thought in
Cambridge Theol. Essays (London, 1905); TYRRELL, Through Scylla
and Charybdis (London, 1907), ii; MARTINEAU, Seat of Authority
in Religion, III, ii (London, 1890).
G.H. JOYCE
Private Revelations
Private Revelations
There are two kinds of revelations: (1) universal revelations,
which are contained in the Bible or in the depositum of
Apostolic tradition transmitted by the Church. These ended with
the preaching of the Apostles and must be believed by all; (2)
particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring
among Christians (see CONTEMPLATION). When the Church approves
private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in
them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read
without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby
imposed on the faithful to believe them. Speaking of such
revelations as (e.g.) those of St. Hildegard (approved in part
by Eugenius III), St. Bridget (by Boniface IX), and St.
Catherine of Siena (by Gregory XI) Benedict XIV says: "It is not
obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic
faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates
of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of
pius belief)" (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II).
Illusions connected with private revelations have been explained
in the article CONTEMPLATION. Some of them are at first thought
surprising. Thus a vision of an historical scene (e.g., of the
life or death of Christ) is often only approximately accurate,
although the visionary may be unaware of this fact, and he may
be misled, if he believes in its absolute historical fidelity.
This error is quite natural, being based on the assumption that,
if the vision comes from God, all its details (the landscape,
dress, words, actions, etc.) should be a faithful reproduction
of the historical past. This assumption is not justified, for
accuracy in secondary details is not necessary; the main point
is that the fact, event, or communication revealed be strictly
true. It may be objected that the Bible contains historical
books, and that thus God may sometimes wish to reveal certain
facts in religious history to us exactly. That doubtless is
true, when there is question of facts which are necessary or
useful as a basis for religion, in which case the revelation is
accompanied by proofs that guarantee its accuracy. A vision need
not guarantee its accuracy in every detail. One should thus
beware of concluding without examination that revelations are to
be rejected; the prudent course is neither to believe nor to
deny them unless there is sufficient reason for so doing. Much
less should one suspect that the saints have been always, or
very often deceived in their vision. On the contrary, such
deception is rare, and as a rule in unimportant matters only.
There are cases in which we can be certain that a revelation is
Divine. (1) God can give this certainty to the person who
receives the revelation (at least during it), by granting an
insight and an evidence so compelling as to exclude all
possibility of doubt. We can find an analogy in the natural
order: our senses are subject to many illusions, and yet we
frequently perceive clearly that we have not been deceived. (2)
At times others can be equally certain of the revelation thus
vouchsafed. For instance, the Prophets of the Old Testament gave
indubitable signs of their mission; otherwise they would not
have been believed. There were always false prophets, who
deceived some of the people but, inasmuch as the faithful were
counselled by Holy Writ to distinguish the false from the true,
it was possible so to distinguish. One incontrovertible proof is
the working of a miracle, if it be wrought for this purpose and
circumstances show this to be so. A prophecy realized is equally
convincing, when it is precise and cannot be the result of
chance or of a conjecture of the evil spirit.
Besides these rather rare means of forming an opinion, there is
another, but longer and more intricate method: to discuss the
reasons for and against. Practically, this examination will
often give only a probability more or less great. It may be also
that the revelation can be regarded as Divine in its broad
outlines, but doubtful in minor details. Concerning the
revelations of Marie de Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich, for
example, contradictory opinions have been expressed: some
believe unhesitatingly everything they contain, and are annoyed
when anyone does not share their confidence; others give the
revelations no credence whatsoever (generally on a priori
grounds); finally there are many who are sympathetic, but do not
know what to reply when asked what degree of credibility is to
be attributed to the writings of these two ecstatics. The truth
seems to be between the two extreme opinions indicated first. If
there is question of a particular fact related in these books
and not mentioned elsewhere, we cannot be certain that it is
true, especially in minor details. In particular instances,
these visionaries have been mistaken: thus Marie de Agreda
teaches, like her contemporaries, the existence of crystal
heavens, and declares that one must believe everything she says,
although such an obligation exists only in the case of the Holy
Scriptures. In 1771 Clement XIV forbade the continuation of her
process of beatification "on account of the book". Catherine
Emmerich has likewise given expression to false or unlikely
opinions: she regards the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius as
due to the Areopagite, and says strange things about the
terrestrial Paradise, which, according to her, exists on an
inaccessible Mountain towards Tibet. If there be question of the
general statement of facts given in these works, we can admit
with probability that many of them are true. For these two
visionaries led lives that were regarded as very holy. Competent
authorities have judged their ecstasies as divine. It is
therefore prudent to admit that they received a special
assistance from God, preserving them not absolutely, but in the
main, from error.
In judging of revelations or visions we may proceed in this
manner: (1) get detailed information about the person who
believes himself thus favored; (2) also about the fact of the
revelation and the circumstances attending it. To prove that a
revelation is Divine (at least in its general outlines), the
method of exclusion is sometimes employed. It consists in
proving that neither the demon nor the ecstatic's own ideas have
interfered (at least on important points) with God's action, and
that no one has retouched the revelation after its occurrence.
This method differs from the preceding one only in the manner of
arranging the information obtained, but it is not so convenient.
To judge revelations or visions, we must be acquainted with the
character of the person favoured with them from a triple point
of view: natural, ascetical, and mystical. (For those who have
been beatified or canonized, this inquiry has been already made
by the Church.) Our inquiry into the visionary's character might
be pursued as follows:
1. What are his natural qualities or defects, from a physical,
intellectual, and especially moral standpoint? If the
information is favourable (if the person is of sound judgment,
calm imagination; if his acts are dictated by reason and not
by enthusiasm, etc.), many causes of illusion are thereby
excluded. However, a momentary aberration is still possible.
2. How has the person been educated? Can the knowledge of the
visionary have been derived from books or from conversations
with theologians?
3. What are the virtues exhibited before and after the
revelation? Has he made progress in holiness and especially in
humility? The tree can be judged by its fruits.
4. What extraordinary graces of union with God have been
received? The greater they are the greater the probability in
favour of the revelation, at least in the main.
5. Has the person had other revelations that have been judged
Divine? Has he made any predictions that have been clearly
realized?
6. Has he been subjected to heavy trials? It is almost impossible
for extraordinary favours to be conferred without heavy
crosses; for both are marks of God's friendship, and each is a
preparation for the other.
7. Does he practice the following rules: fear deception; be open
with your director; do not desire to have revelations?
Our information concerning a revelation considered in itself or
concerning the circumstances that accompanied it might be
secured as follows:
1. Is there an authentic account, in which nothing has been
added, suppressed, or corrected?
2. Does the revelation agree with the teaching of the Church or
with the recognized facts of history or natural science?
3. Does it teach nothing contrary to good morals, and is it
unaccompanied by any indecent action? The commandments of God
are addressed to everyone without exception. More than once
the demon has persuaded false visionaries that they were
chosen souls, and that God loved them so much as to dispense
them from the burdensome restrictions imposed on ordinary
mortals. On the contrary, the effect of Divine visitations is
to remove us more and more from the life of sense, and make us
more rigorous towards ourselves.
4. Is the reaching helpful towards the obtaining of eternal
salvation? In spiritism we find the spirits evoked treat only
of trifles. They reply to idle questions, or descend to
providing amusement for an assembly (e.g., by moving furniture
about); deceased relatives or the great philosophers are
interrogated and their replies are woefully commonplace. A
revelation is also suspect if its aim is to decide a disputed
question in theology, history, astronomy, etc. Eternal
salvation is the only thing of importance in the eyes of God.
"In all other matters", says St. John of the Cross, "He wishes
men to have recourse to human means" (Montee, II, xxii).
Finally, a revelation is suspect if it is commonplace, telling
only what is to be found in every book. It is then probable
that the visionary is unconsciously repeating what he has
learnt by reading.
5. After examining all the circumstances accompanying the vision
(the attitudes, acts, words, etc.), do we find that the
dignity and seriousness which become the Divine Majesty? The
spirits evoked by Spiritists often speak in a trivial manner.
Spiritists try to explain this by pretending that the spirits
are not demons, but the souls of the departed who have
retained all their vices; absurd or unbecoming replies are
given by deceased persons who are still liars, or libertines,
frivolous or mystifiers, etc. But if that be so,
communications with these degraded beings is evidently
dangerous. In Protestant "revivals" assembled crowds bewail
their sins, but in a strange, exaggerated way, as if frenzied
or intoxicated. It must be admitted that they are inspired by
a good principle: a very ardent sentiment of the love of God
and of repentance. But to this is added another element that
cannot be regarded as Divine: a neuropathic enthusiasm, which
is contagious and sometimes develops so far as to produce
convulsions or repugnant contortions. Sometimes a kind of
unknown language is spoken, but it consists in reality of a
succession of meaningless sounds.
6. What sentiments of peace, or, on the other hand, of
disturbance, are experienced during or after the revelations?
Here is the rule as formulated by St. Catherine of Siena and
St. Ignatius: "With persons of good will [it is only of such
that we are here treating] the action of the good spirit [God
or His Angels] is characterized by the production of peace,
joy, security, courage; except perhaps at the first moment."
Note the restriction. The Bible often mentions this
disturbance at the first moment of the revelation; the Blessed
Virgin experienced it when the Angel Gabriel appeared to her.
The action of the demon produces quite the contrary effect:
"With persons of good will he produces, except perhaps at the
first moment, disturbance, sorrow, discouragement,
perturbation, gloom." In a word the action of Satan encounters
a mysterious resistance of the soul.
7. It often happens that the revelation inspires an exterior work
- for instance, the establishment of a new devotion, the
foundation of a new religious congregation or association, the
revision of the constitutions of a congregation, etc., the
building of a church or the creation of a pilgrimage, the
reformation of the lax spirit in a certain body, the preaching
of a new spirituality, etc. In these cases the value of the
proposed work must be carefully examined; is it good in
itself, useful, filling a need, not injurious to other works,
etc.?
8. Have the revelations been subjected to the tests of time and
discussion?
9. If any work has been begun as a result of the revelation, has
it produced great spiritual fruit? Have the sovereign pontiffs
and the bishops believed this to be so, and have they assisted
the progress of the work? This is very well illustrated in the
cases of the Scapular of Mount Carmel, the devotion to the
Sacred Heart, the miraculous medal. These are the signs that
enable us to judge with probability if a revelation is Divine.
In the case of certain persons very closely united to God, the
slow study of these signs has been sometimes aided or replaced
by a supernatural intuition; this is what is known as the
infused gift of the discernment of spirits.
As regards the rules of conduct, the two principal have been
explained in the article on CONTEMPLATION, namely
1. if the revelation leads solely to the love of God and the
saints, the director may provisionally regard it as Divine;
2. at the beginning the visionary should do his best to repulse
the revelation quietly. He should not desire to receive it,
otherwise he will be exposing himself to the risk of being
deceived.
Here are some further rules:
+ the director must be content to proceed slowly, not to express
astonishment, to treat the person gently. If he were to be
harsh or distrustful, he would intimidate the soul he is
directing, and incline it to conceal important details from
him;
+ he must be very careful to urge the soul to make progress in
the way of sanctity. He will point out that the only value of
the visions is in the spiritual fruit that they produce;
+ he will pray fervently, and have the subject he is directing
pray, that the necessary light may be granted. God cannot fail
to make known the true path to those who ask Him humbly. If on
the contrary a person confided solely in his natural prudence,
he would expose himself to punishment for his
self-sufficiency;
+ the visionary should be perfectly calm and patient if his
superiors do not allow him to carry out the enterprises that
he deems inspired by Heaven or revealed. One who, when
confronted with this opposition, becomes impatient or
discouraged, shows that he has very little confidence in the
power of God and is but little conformed to His will. If God
wishes the project to succeed, He can make the obstacles
suddenly disappear at the time appointed by Him. A very
striking example of this divine delay is to be found in the
life of St. Juliana, the Cistercian prioress of
Mont-Cornillon, near Liege (1192-1258). It is to her that the
institution of the feast of the Blessed Sacrament is due. All
of her life was passed in awaiting the hour of God, which she
was never to see, for it came only more than a century after
the beginning of the revelations.
As regards inspirations ordinarily, those who have not passed
the period of tranquility or a complete union, must beware of
the idea that they hear supernatural words; unless the evidence
is irresistible, they should attribute them to the activity of
their own imaginations. But they may at least experience
inspirations or impulses more or less strong, which seem to
point out to them how to act in difficult circumstances. This is
a minor form of revelation. The same line of conduct should be
followed as in the latter case. We must not accept them blindly
and against the dictates of reason, but weigh the reasons for
and against, consult a prudent director, and decide only after
applying the rules for the discernment of spirits. The attitude
of reserve that has just been laid down does not apply to the
simple, sudden and illuminating views of faith, which enables
one to understand in a higher manner not novelties, but the
truths admitted by the Church. Such enlightenment cannot have
any evil result. It is on the contrary a very precious grace,
which should be very carefully welcomed and utilized.
Consult the writings of ST. TERESA AND ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS,
passim; PHILIP OF THE BLESSED TRINITY, Summa theologica mysticae
(Lyons, 1656), pt. II, tr. iii; DE VALLGORNERA, Mystica
Theologia (Barcelona, 1662), Q. ii, disp. 5; LOPEZ DE EZQUERRA,
Lucerna Mystica (Venice, 1692), tr. v; AMORT, De revelationibus
(Augsburg, 1744); BENEDICT XIV, De servorum Dei canonizatione
(Rome, 1767), l.III, c. liii; SCARAMELLI, Direttorio mistico
(Venice, 1754), tr.iv; SCHRAM, Institutiones theologicae
mysticae (Augsburg, 1777), pt. II, c. iv; ST. LIGUORI, Homo
apostolicus (Venice, 1782), append.i, n. 19; RIBET, La mystique
divine, II (Paris, 1879); POULAIN, Des graces d'oraison (5th
ed., Paris, 1909), tr. The Graces of Interior Prayer (London,
1910).
AUG. POULAIN
Revocation
Revocation
The act of recalling or annulling, the reversal of an act, the
recalling of a grant, or the making void of some deed previously
existing. This term is of wide application in canon law. Grants,
laws, contracts, sentences, jurisdiction, appointments are at
times revoked by the grantor, his successor or superior
according to the prescriptions of law. Revocation without just
cause is illicit, though often valid. Laws and customs are
revoked when, owing to change of circumstances, they cease to be
just and reasonable. Concordats (q.v.) are revocable when they
redound to the serious injury of the Church. Minors and
ecclesiastical institutions may have sentences in certain civil
trials set aside (Restitutio in integrum). Contracts by which
ecclesiastical property is alienated are sometimes rescindable.
A judge may revoke his own interlocutory sentence but not a
definitive judicial sentence. Many appointments are revocable at
will; others require a judicial trial or other formalities. (See
BENEFICE; FACULTIES, CANONICAL; INDULTS, PONTIFICAL;
JURISDICTION, ECCLESIASTICAL.)
ANDREW B. MEEHAN
English Revolution of 1688
English Revolution of 1688
James II, having reached the climax of his power after the
successful suppression of Monmouth's rebellion in 1685, then had
the Tory reaction in his favour, complete control over
Parliament and the town corporations, a regular army in England,
a thoroughly Catholic army in process of formation in Ireland,
and a large revenue granted by Parliament for life. His policy
was to govern England as absolute monarch and to restore
Catholics to their full civil and religious rights.
Unfortunately, both prudence and statesmanship were lacking,
with the result that in three years the king lost his throne.
The history of the Revolution resolves itself into a catalogue
of various ill-judged measures which alienated the support of
the Established Church, the Tory party, and the nation as a
whole. The execution of Monmouth (July, 1685) made the
Revolution possible, for it led to the Whig party accepting
William of Orange as the natural champion of Protestantism
against the attempts of James. Thus the opposition gained a
centre round which it consolidated with ever-increasing force.
What the Catholics as a body desired was freedom of worship and
the repeal of the penal laws; but a small section of them,
desirous of political power, aimed chiefly at the repeal of the
Test Act of 1673 and the Act of 1678 which excluded Catholics
from both houses of Parliament. Unfortunately James fell under
the influence of this section, which was directed by the
unprincipled Earl of Sunderland, and he decided on a policy of
repeal of the Test Act. Circumstances had caused this question
to be closely bound up with that of the army. For James, who
placed his chief reliance on his soldiers, had increased the
standing army to 30,000, 13,000 of whom, partly officered by
Catholics, were encamped on Hounslow Heath to the great
indignation of London which regarded the camp as a menace to its
liberties and a centre of disorder. Parliament demanded that the
army should be reduced to normal dimensions and the Catholic
officers dismissed; but James, realizing that the test would not
be repealed, prorogued Parliament and proceeded to exercise the
"dispensing and suspending power". By this he claimed that it
was the prerogative of the crown to dispense with the execution
of the penal laws in individual cases and to suspend the
operation of any law altogether. To obtain the sanction of the
Law Courts for this doctrine a test case, known as Hales's case,
was brought to decide whether the king could allow a Catholic to
hold office in the army without complying with the Test Act.
After James had replaced some of the judges by more complaisant
lawyers, he obtained a decision that "it was of the king's
prerogative to dispense. with penal laws in particular
instances". He acted on the decision by appointing Catholics to
various positions, Lord Tyrconnel becoming Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland, Lord Arundel Lord Privy Seal, and Lord Bellasyse Lord
Treasurer in place of the Tory minister Lord Rochester, who was
regarded as the chief mainstay of the Established Church. The
Church of England, which was rendered uneasy by the dismissal of
Rochester, was further alienated by the king's action in
appointing a Court of High Commission, which suspended the
Bishop of London for refusing to inhibit one of his clergy from
preaching anti-Catholic sermons. The feeling was intensified by
the liberty which Catholics enjoyed in London during 1686.
Public chapels were opened, including one in the Royal Palace,
the Jesuits founded a large school in the Savoy, and Catholic
ecclesiastics appeared openly at Court.
At this juncture James, desiring to counterbalance the loss of
Anglican support, offered toleration to the dissenters, who at
the beginning of his reign had been severely persecuted. The
influence of William Penn induced the king to issue on 4 April,
1687, the Declaration of Indulgence, by which liberty of worship
was granted to all, Catholic and Protestant alike. He also
replaced Tory churchmen by Whig dissenters on the municipal
corporations and the commission of the peace, and, having
dissolved Parliament, hoped to secure a new House of Commons
which would repeal both the penal laws and the Test. But he
underestimated two difficulties, the hatred of the dissenters
for "popery" and their distrust of royal absolutism. His action
in promoting Catholics to the Privy Council, the judicial bench,
and the offices of Lord lieutenant, sheriff, and magistrate,
wounded these susceptibilities, while he further offended the
Anglicans by attempting to restore to Catholics some of their
ancient foundations in the universities. Catholics obtained some
footing both at Christ Church and University College, Oxford,
and in March 1688, James gave the presidency of Magdalen College
to Bonaventure Giffard, the Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the
Midland District. This restoration of Magdalen as a Catholic
college created the greatest alarm, not only among the holders
of benefices throughout the country, but also among the owners
of ancient abbey lands. The presence of the papal nuncio, Mgr
d'Adda, at Court and the public position granted to the four
Catholic bishops, who had recently been appointed as vicars
Apostolic, served to increase both the dislike of the dissenters
to support a king whose acts, while of doubtful legality, were
also subversive of Protestant interests, and likewise the
difficulty of the Anglicans in practicing passive obedience in
face of such provocation. Surrounded by these complications,
James issued his second Declaration of Indulgence in April,
1688, and ordered that it should be read in all the churches.
This strained Anglican obedience to the breaking point. The
Archbishop of Canterbury and six of his suffragans presented a
petition questioning the dispensing power. The seven bishops
were sent to the Tower prosecuted, tried, and acquitted. This
trial proved to be the immediate occasion of the Revolution,
for, as Halifax said, "it hath brought all Protestants together
and bound them up into a knot that cannot easily be untied".
While the bishops were in the Tower, another epoch-marking event
occurred -- the birth of an heir to the crown (10 June, 1688).
Hitherto the hopes of the king's opponents had been fixed on the
succession of his Protestant daughter Mary, wife of William of
Orange, the Protestant leader. The birth of Prince James now
opened up the prospect of a Catholic dynasty just at a moment
when the ancient anti-Catholic bigotry had been aroused by
events both in England and France. For besides the ill-advised
acts of James, the persecution of the Huguenots by Louis XIV,
consequent on the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685,
revived old religious animosities. England was flooded with
French Protestant refugees bearing everywhere the tale of a
Catholic king's cruelty.
Unfortunately for James his whole foreign policy had been one of
subservience to France, and at this moment of crisis the power
of France was a menace to all Europe. Even Catholic Austria and
Spain supported the threatened Protestant states, and the pope
himself, outraged by Louis XIV in a succession of wrongs, joined
the universal resistance to France and was allied with William
of Orange and other Protestant sovereigns against Louis and his
single supporter, James. William had long watched the situation
in England, and during 1687 had received communications from the
opposition in which it was agreed that, whenever revolutionary
action should become advisable, it should be carried out under
William's guidance. As early as the autumn of 1687 the papal
secretary of state was aware of the plot to dethrone James and
make Mary queen, and a French agent dispatched the news to
England through France. The Duke of Norfolk then in Rome also
learned it, and sent intelligence to the king before 18 Dec.,
1687 (letter of d'Estrees to Louvois, cited by Ranke, II, 424).
But James, though early informed, was reluctant to believe that
his son-in-law would head an insurrection against him. On the
day the seven bishops were acquitted seven English statesmen
sent a letter to William inviting him to rescue the religion and
liberties of England. But William was threatened by a French
army on the Belgian frontier, and could not take action. Louis
XIV made a last effort to save James, and warned the Dutch
States General that he would regard any attack on England as a
declaration of war against France. This was keenly resented by
James who regarded it as a slight upon English independence, and
he repudiated the charge that he had made a secret treaty with
France. Thereupon Louis left him to his fate, removed the French
troops from Flanders to begin a campaign against the empire, and
thus William was free to move. When it was too late James
realized his danger. By hasty concessions granted one after
another he tried to undo his work and win back the Tory
churchmen to his cause. But he did not remove the Catholic
officers or suggest the restriction of the dispensing power. In
October Sunderland was dismissed from office, but William was
already on the seas, and, though driven back by a storm, he
re-embarked and landed at Torbay on 5 Nov., 1688. James at first
prepared to resist. The army was sent to intercept William, but
by the characteristic treachery of Churchill, disaffection was
spread, and the king, not knowing in whom he could place
confidence, attempted to escape. At Sheerness he was stopped and
sent back to London, where he might have proved an embarrassing
prisoner had not his escape been connived at. On 23 Dec., 1688,
he left England to take refuge with Louis XIV; the latter
received him generously and granted him both palace and pension.
On his first departure the mob had risen in London against the
Catholics, and attacked chapels and houses, plundering and
carrying off the contents. Even the ambassadors' houses were not
spared, and the Spanish and Sardinian embassy chapels were
destroyed. Bishops Giffard and Leyburn were arrested and
committed to the Tower. Father Petre had escaped, and the Nuncio
disguised himself as a servant at the house of the envoy from
Savoy, till he was enabled to obtain from William a passport. So
far as the English Catholics were concerned, the result of the
Revolution was that their restoration to freedom of worship and
liberation from the penal laws was delayed for a century and
more.
So completely had James lost the confidence of the nation that
William experienced no opposition and the Revolution ran its
course in an almost regular way. A Convention Parliament met on
22 January, 1689, declared that James "having withdrawn himself
out of the kingdom, had abdicated the government, and that the
throne was thereby vacant", and "that experience had shown it to
be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant
kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince". The crown was
offered to William and Mary, who accepted the Declaration of
Right, which laid down the principles of the constitution with
regard to the dispensing power, the liberties of Parliament, and
other matters. After their proclamation as king and queen, the
Declaration was ratified by the Bill of Rights, and the work of
the Revolution was complete. English Catholics have indeed had
good cause to lament the failure of the king's well-meant, if
unwise, attempts to restore their liberty, and to regret that he
did not act on the wise advice of Pope Innocent XI and Cardinal
Howard to proceed by slow degrees and obtain first the repeal of
the penal laws before going on to restore their full civil
rights. But on the other hand we can now realize that the
Revolution had the advantage of finally closing the long
struggle between king and Parliament that had lasted for nearly
a century, and of establishing general principles of religious
toleration in which Catholics were bound sooner or later to be
included.
LINGARD, Hist. of England, X (London, 1849), the standard
Catholic account; LODGE in HUNT and POOLE, Political Hist. of
England, Vlll (London, 1910); TEMPERLEY in Cambridge Modern
Hist., V (London, 1908); TREVELYAN, England under the Stuarts
(London, 1904); WYATT-DAVIES, Hist. of England for Catholic
Schools (London, 1903); GREEN, Hist. of the English People
(London, 1877-80); MACAULAY, Hist. of England (London, 1849);
TASWELL-LANGMEAD, English Constitutional Hist. (London, 1875);
BRIGHT, Hist. of England, 2nd period (London, 1880); GUIZOT
Pourquoi la Revolution a-t-elle reussi? (1640~1688) (Paris,
1850); MAZURE, Hist. de la revol. de 1688 (3 vols., Paris,
1825). For earlier accounts consult DEFOE, Revol. of 1688
reprinted in ARBER, English Garner, XII (London, 1903); EACHARD,
Hist. of the Revol. in 1688 (London, 1725); BURNET, Hist. of my
Own Times (last edition, Oxford 1897-1900); DODD, Church Hist.
(Wolverhampton vere Brussels, 1737 -42); SPEKE, Secret Hist. of
the happy Revol., 1688 (London, 1715).
EDWIN BURTON
French Revolution
French Revolution
The last thirty years have given us a new version of the history
of the French Revolution, the most diverse and hostile schools
having contributed to it. The philosopher, Taine, drew attention
to the affinity between the revolutionary and what he calls the
classic spirit, that is, the spirit of abstraction which gave
rise to Cartesianism and produced certain masterpieces of French
literature. Moreover he admirably demonstrated the mechanism of
the local revolutionary committees and showed how a daring
Jacobin minority was able to enforce its will as that of "the
people". Following up this line of research M. Augustin Cochin
has quite recently studied the mechanism of the societes de
pensee in which the revolutionary doctrine was developed and in
which were formed men quite prepared to put this doctrine into
execution.
The influence of freemasonry in the French Revolution proclaimed
by Louis Blanc and by freemasonry itself is proved by the
researches of M. Cochin. Sorel has brought out the connection
between the diplomacy of the Revolution and that of the old
regime. His works prove that the Revolution did not mark a break
in the continuity of the foreign policy of France. The radically
inclined historical school, founded and led by M. Aulard, has
published numerous useful documents as well as the review, "La
Revolution Franc,aise". Two years since, a schism occured in
this school, M. Mathiez undertaking opposition to M. Aulard the
defence of Robespierre, in consequence of which he founded a new
review "Les Annales Revolutionaires". The "Societe d'histoire
contemporaine", founded under Catholic auspices, has published a
series of texts bearing on revolutionary history. Lastly the
works of Abbe Sicard have revealed in the clergy who remained
faithful to Rome various tendencies, some legitimist, others
more favourable to the new political forms, a new side of the
history of the French clergy being thus developed.
Such are the most recent additions to the history of the French
Revolution. This article, however, will emphasize more
especially the relations between the Revolution and the Church
(see France).
MEETING OF THE ESTATES
The starting point of the French Revolution was the convocation
of the States General by Louis XVI. They comprised three orders,
nobility, clergy, and the third estate, the last named being
permitted to have as many members as the two other orders
together. The electoral regulation of 24 January, 1789, assured
the parochial clergy a large majority in the meetings of the
bailliages which were to elect clerical representatives to the
States General. While chapters were to send to these meetings
only a single delegate for ten canons, and each convent only one
of its members, all the cures were permitted to vote. The number
of the "order" of clergy at the States General exceeded 300,
among whom were 44 prelates, 208 cures, 50 canons and
commendatory abbots, and some monks. The clergy advocated almost
as forcibly as did the Third Estate the establishment of a
constitutional government based on the separation of the powers,
the periodical convocation of the States General, their
supremacy in financial matters, the responsibility of ministers,
and the regular guarantee of individual liberty. Thus the true
and great reforms tending to the establishment of liberty were
advocated by the clergy on the eve of the Revolution. When the
Estates assembled 5 May, 1789, the Third Estate demanded that
the verification of powers should be made in common by the three
orders, the object being that the Estates should form but one
assembly in which the distinction between the "orders" should
disappear and where every member was to have a vote. Scarcely a
fourth of the clergy advocated this reform, but from the opening
of the Estates it was evident that the desired individual voting
which would give the members of the Third Estate, the advocates
of reform, an effectual preponderance.
As early as 23 May, 1789, the cures at the house of the
Archbishop of Bordeaux were of the opinion that the power of the
deputies should be verified in the general assembly of the
Estates, and when on 17 June the members of the Third Estate
proclaimed themselves the "National Assembly", the majority of
the clergy decided (19 June) to join them. As the higher clergy
and the nobility still held out, the king caused the hall where
the meetings of the Third Estate were held to be closed (20
June), whereupon the deputies, with their president, Bailly,
repaired to the Jeu de Paume and an oath was taken not to
disband till they had provided France with a constitution. After
Mirabeau's thundering speech (23 June) addressed to the Marquis
de Dreux-Breze, master-of-ceremonies to Louis XVI, the king
himself (27 June) invited the nobility to join the Third Estate.
Louis XVI's dismissal of the reforming minister, Necker, and the
concentration of the royal army about Paris, brought about the
insurrection of 14 July, and the capture of the Bastille. M.
Funck-Brentano has destroyed the legends which rapidly arose in
connection with the celebrated fortress. There was no rising en
masse of the people of Paris, and the number of the besiegers
was but a thousand at most; only seven prisoners were found at
the Bastille, four of whom were forgers, one a young man guilty
of monstrous crimes and who for the sake of his family was kept
at the Bastille that he might escape the death penalty, and two
insane prisoners. But in the public opinion the Bastille
symbolized royal absolutism and the capture of this fortress was
regarded as the overthrow of the whole regime, and foreign
nations attached great importance to the event. Louis XVI
yielded before this agitation; Necker was recalled; Bailly
became Mayor of Paris; Lafayette, commander of the national
militia; the tri-colour was adopted, and Louis XVI consented to
recognize the title of "National Constituent Assembly". Te Deums
and processions celebrated the taking of the Bastille; in the
pulpits the Abbe Fauchet preached the harinony of religion and
liberty. As a result of the establishment of the "vote by order"
the political privileges of the clergy may be considered to have
ceased to exist.
During the night of 4 August, 1789, at the instance of the
Vicomte de Noailles, the Assembly voted with extraordinary
enthusiasm the abolition of all privileges and feudal rights and
the equality of all Frenchmen. A blow was thereby struck at the
wealth of the clergy, but the churchmen were the first to give
an example of sacrifice. Plurality of benefices and annates was
abolished and the redemption of tithes was agreed upon, but two
days later, the higher clergy becoming uneasy, demanded another
discussion of the vote which had carried the redemption. The
result was the abolition, pure and simple, of tithes without
redemption. In the course of the discussion Buzot declared that
the property of the clergy belonged to the nation. Louis XVI's
conscience began to be alarmed. He temporized for five weeks,
then merely published the decrees as general principles,
reserving the right to approve or reject the measures which the
Assembly would take to enforce them.
DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN.
CATHOLICISM CEASES TO BE THE RELIGION OF THE STATE
Before giving France a constitution the Assembly judged it
necessary to draw up a "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of
the Citizen", which should form a preamble to the Constitution.
Camus's suggestion that to the declaration of the rights of man
should be added a declaration of his duties, was rejected. The
Declaration of Rights mentions in its preamble that it is made
in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, but
out of three of the articles proposed by the clergy,
guaranteeing the respect due to religion and public worship, two
were rejected after speeches by the Protestant, Rabaut
Saint-Etienne, and Mirabeau, and the only article relating to
religion was worded as follows: "No one shall be disturbed for
his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does
not disturb the public order established by law." In fact it was
the wish of the Assembly that Catholicism should cease to be the
religion of the State and that liberty of worship should be
established. It subsequently declared Protestants eligible to
all offices (24 Dec., 1789), restored to their possessions and
status as Frenchmen the heirs of Protestant refugees (10 July
and 9 Dec., 1790), and took measures in favour of the Jews (28
January, 26 July, 16 Aug., 1790). But it soon became evident in
the discussions relating to the Civil Constitution of the clergy
that the Assembly desired that the Catholic Church, to which the
majority of the French people belonged, should be subject to the
State and really organized by the State.
The rumours that Louis XVI sought to fly to Metz and place
himself under the protection of the army of Bouille in order to
organize a counter-revolutionary movement and his refusal to
promulgate the Declaration of the Rights of Man, brought about
an uprising in Paris. The mob set out to Versailles, and amid
insults brought back the king and queen to Paris (6 Oct., 1789).
Thenceforth the Assembly sat at Paris, first at the
archiepiscopal residence, then at the Tuileries. At this moment
the idea of taking possession of the goods of the clergy in
order to meet financial exigencies began to appear in a number
of journals and pamphlets. The plan of confiscating this
property, which had been suggested as early as 8 August by the
Marquis de Lacoste, was resumed (24 Sept.) by the economist,
Dupont de Nemours, and on 10 October was supported in the name
of the Committee of Finances in a report which caused scandal by
Talleyrand, Bishop of Autun, who under the old regime had been
one of the two "general agents" charged with defending the
financial interests of the French clergy. On 12 October Mirabeau
requested the Assembly to decree (1) that the ownership of the
church property belonged to the nation that it might provide for
the support of the priests; (2) that the salary of each cure
should not be less than 1200 livres. The plan was discussed from
13 October to 2 November. It was opposed the Abbe de
Montesquieu, and the Abbe Maury, who contended that the clergy
being a moral person could be an owner, disputed the estimates
placed upon placed upon the wealth of the clergy, and suggested
that their possessions should simply serve as a guarantee for a
loan of 400,000,000 livres to the nation. The advocates of
confiscation maintained that the clergy no longer existed as an
order, that the property was like an escheated succession, and
that the State had a right to claim it, that moreover the Royal
Government had never expressly recognized the clergy as a
proprietor, that in 1749 Louis XV had forbidden the clergy to
receive anything without the authority of the State, and that he
had confiscated the property of the Society of Jesus. Malouet
took an intermediate stand and demanded that the State should
confiscate only superfluous ecclesiastical possessions, but that
the parochial clergy should be endowed with land. Finally, on 2
November, 1789, the Assembly decided that the possessions of the
clergy be "placed at the disposal" of the nation. The results of
this vote were not long in following. The first was Treilhard's
motion (17 December), demanding in the name of the
ecclesiastical committee of the Assembly, the closing of useless
convents, and decreeing that the State should permit the
religious to release themselves from their monastic vows.
The discussion of this project began in February, 1790, after
the Assembly by the creation of assemblies of departments,
districts, and commons, had proceeded to the administrative
reorganization of France. The discussion was again very violent.
On 13 February, 1790, the Assembly, swayed by the more radical
suggestions of Barnave and Thouret, decreed as a "constitutional
article" that not only should the law no longer recognize
monastic vows, but that religious orders and congregations were
and should remain suppressed in France, and that no others
should be established in the future. After having planned a
partial suppression of monastic orders the Assembly voted for
their total suppression. The proposal of Cazales (17 February)
calling for the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, and the
rightful efforts, made by the higher clergy to prevent Catholics
from purchasing the confiscated goods of the Church provoked
reprisals. On 17 March, 1790, the Assembly decided that the
400,000,000 livres worth of alienated ecclesiastical properties
should be sold to municipalities which in turn should sell them
to private buyers. On 14 April it decided that the maintenance
of Catholic worship should be provided for without recourse to
the revenues of former ecclesiastical property and that a
sufficient sum, fixed at more than 133,000,000 livres for the
first year, should be entered in the budget for the allowances
to be made to the clergy; on 17 April the decree was passed
dealing with the assignats, the papers issued by the Government
paying interest at 5 per cent, and which were to be accepted as
money in payment for the ecclesial property, thenceforth called
national property; finally, on 9 July, it was decreed that all
this property should be put up for sale.
CIVIL CONSTITUTION OF THE CLERGY
On 6 February, 1790, the Assembly charged its ecclesiastical
committee, appointed 20 Aug., 1789, and composed of fifteen
members to prepare the reorganization of the clergy. Fifteen new
members were added to the committee on 7 February. The
"constituents" were disciples of the eighteenth century
philosophes who subordinated religion to the State; moreover, to
understand their standpoint it is well to bear in mind that many
of them were jurists imbued with Gallican and Josephist ideas.
Finally Taine has proved that in many respects their religious
policy merely followed in the footsteps of the old regime, but
while the old regime protected the Catholic Church and made it
the church exclusive, recognized, the constituents planned to
enslave it after having stripped it of its privileges.
Furthermore they did not take into account that there are mixed
matters that can only be regulated after an agreement with
ecclesiastical authority. They were especially incensed against
the clergy after the consistorial address in which Pius VI (22
March, 1790) reproved some of the measures already taken by the
Constituent Assembly, and by the news received from the West and
South where the just dissatisfaction of Catholic consciences had
provoked disturbances; in particular the election of the
Protestant Rabaut Saint-Etienne to the presidency of the
National Assembly brought about commotions at Toulouse and
Nimes. Under the influence of these disturbances the Civil
Constitution of the Clergy was developed. On 29 May, 1790, it
was laid before the Assembly. Bonal, Bishop of Clermont, and
some members of the Right requested that the project should be
submitted to a national council or to the pope. But the Assembly
proceeded; it discussed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy
from 1 June to 12 July, 1790, on which date it was passed.
This Constitution comprised four titles.
Title I, Ecclesiastical Offices: Diocesan boundaries were to
agree with those of departments, 57 episcopal sees being thus
suppressed. The title of archbishop was abolished; out of 83
remaining bishoprics 10 were called metropolitan bishoprics and
given jurisdiction over the neighbouring dioceses. No section of
French territory should recognize the authority of a bishop
living abroad, or of his delegates, and this, adds the
Constitution, "without prejudice to the unity of faith and the
communion which shall be maintained with the head of the
Universal Church". Canonries, prebends, and priories were
abolished. There should no longer be any sacerdotal posts
especially devoted to fulfilling the conditions of Mass
foundations. All appeals to Rome were forbidden.
Title II, Appointment to Benefice: Bishops should be appointed
by the Electoral Assembly of the department; they should be
invested and consecrated by the metropolitan and take an oath of
fidelity to the nation, the King, the Law, and the Constitution;
they should not seek any confirmation from the pope. Parish
priests should be elected by the electoral assemblies of the
districts. Thus all citizens, even Protestants, Jews, and
nominal Catholics, might name titulars to ecclesiastical
offices, and the first obligation of priests and bishops was to
take an oath of fidelity to the Constitution which denied to the
Holy See any effective power over the Church.
Title III, Salary of ministers of Religion: The Constitution
fixed the salary of the Bishop of Paris at 51,000 livres (about
$10,200), that of bishops of towns whose population exceeded
50,000 souls at 20,000 livres (about $4000), that of other
bishops at 12,000 livres (about $2400), that of cures at a sum
ranging from 6000 (about $1200) to 1200 livres (about $240). For
the lower clergy this was a betterment of their material
condition, especially as the real value of these sums was two
and one-half times the present amount.
Title IV, dealing with residence, made very severe conditions
regarding the absences of bishops and priests.
At the festival of the Federation (14 July, 1790) Talleyrand and
three hundred priests officiating at the altar of the nation
erected on the Champs-de-Mars wore the tri-colored girdle above
their priestly vestments and besought the blessing of God on the
Revolution. Deputations were present from the towns of France,
and there was inaugurated a sort of cult, of the Fatherland, the
remote origin of all the "Revolutionary cults". On 10 July,
1790, in a confidential Brief to Louis XVI, Pius VI expressed
the alarm with which the project under discussion filled him. He
commissioned two ecclesiastics who were ministers of Louis XVI,
Champion de Cice and Lefranc de Pompignan, to urge the king not
to sign the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. On 28 July, in a
letter to the pope, Louis XVI replied that he would be
compelled, "with death in his soul", to promulgate the
Constitution, that he would reserve the right to broach as soon
as possible the matter of some concession, but that if he
refused, his life and the lives of his family would be
endangered.
The pope replied (17 August) that he still held the same opinion
of the Constitution, but that he would make no public
declaration on the subject until he consulted with the Sacred
College. On 24 August the king promulgated the Constitution, for
which he was blamed by the pope in a confidential Brief on 22
September. M. Mathiez claims to have proved that the hesitancy
of Pius VI was due to temporal rather than to spiritual
considerations, to his serious fears about the affairs of
Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin, where certain popular parties
were clamoring for French troops, but the truth is that Pius VI,
who had made known his opinion of the Constitution to two French
prelates, was awaiting some manifestation on the part of the
French episcopate. Indeed the bishops spoke before the pope had
spoken publicly. At the end of October, 1790, they published an
"Exposition des principes sur la constitution civile du clerge",
compiled by Boisgelin, Archbishop of Aix in which they rejected
the Constitution and called upon the faithful to do the same.
This publication marks the beginning of a violent conflict
between the episcopate an the Constitution. On 27 November,
1790, after a speech by Mirabeau, a decree stipulated that all
bishops and priests should within a week, under penalty of
losing their offices, take the oath to the Constitution, that
all who refused and who nevertheless continued to discharge
their priestly functions should be prosecuted as disturbers of
the public peace. The king, who was much disturbed by this
decree, eventually sanctioned it (26 December, 1790) in order to
avoid a rising.
Hitherto a large section of the lesser clergy had shown a
certain amount of sympathy for the Revolution, but when it was
seen that the episcopal members of the Assembly refused to take
the oath, thus sacrificing their sees, a number of the priests
followed this disinterested example. It may be said that from
the end of 1790 the higher clergy and the truly orthodox
elements of the lower clergy were united against the
revolutionary measures. Thenceforth there were two classes, the
non-juring or refractory priests, who were faithful to Rome and
refused the oath, and the jurors, sworn, or Constitutional
priests, who had consented to take the oath. M. de la Gorce has
recently sought to estimate the exact proportion of the priests
who took the oath. Out of 125 bishops there were only four,
Talleyrand of Autun, Brienne of Sens, Jarente of Orleans, and
Lafond de Savine, of Viviers; three coadjutors or bishops in
partibus, Gobel, Coadjutor Bishop of Bale; Martial de Brienne,
Coadjutor of Sens; and Dubourg-Miraudet, Bishop of Babylon. In
the important towns most of the priests refused to take the
oath. Statistics for the small boroughs and the country are more
difficult to obtain. The national archives preserve the complete
dockets of 42 departments which were sent to the Constituent
Assembly by the civil authorities. This shows that in these 42
departments, of 23,093 priests called upon to swear, 13,118 took
the oath. There would be therefore out of 100 priests, 56 to 57
jurors against 43 to 44 non-jurors. M. de la Gorce gives serious
reasons for contesting these statistics, which were compiled by
zealous bureaucrats anxious to please the central
administrators. He asserts on the other hand that the schism had
little hold in fifteen departments and concludes that in 1791
the number of priests faithful to Rome was 52 to 55 out of 100;
this is a small enough majority, but one which M. de la Gorce
considers authentic.
On 5 February, 1791, the Constituent Assembly forbade every
non-juring priest to preach in public. In March the elections to
provide for the vacant episcopal sees and parishes took place.
Disorder grew in the Church of France; young and ambitious
priests, better known for their political than for their
religious zeal, were candidates, and in many places owing to the
opposition of good Catholics those elected had much difficulty
in taking possession of their churches. At this juncture, seeing
the Constitutional Church thus setup in France against the
legitimate Church, Pius VI wrote two letters, one to the bishops
and one to Louis XVI, to inquire if there remained any means to
prevent schism; and finally, on 13 April, 1791, he issued a
solemn condemnation of the Civil Constitution in a solemn Brief
to the clergy and the people. On 2 May, 1791, the annexation of
the Comtat Venaissin and the city of Avignon by the French
troops marked the rupture of diplomatic relations between France
and the Holy See. From May, 1791, there was no longer an
ambassador from France at Rome or a nuncio at Paris. The Brief
of Pius VI encouraged the resistance of the Catholics. The
Masses celebrated by non-juring priests attracted crowds of the
faithful. Then mobs gathered and beat and outraged nuns and
other pious women. On 7 May, 1791, the Assembly decided that the
non-juring priests as pretres habitues might continue to say
Mass in parochial churches or conduct their services in other
churches on condition that they would respect the laws and not
stir up revolt against the Civil Constitution. The
Constitutional priests became more and more unpopular with good
Catholics; Sciout's works go to show that the "departmental
directories" had to spend their time in organizing regular
police expeditions to protect the Constitutional priests against
the opposition of good Catholics, or to prosecute the non-juring
priests who heroically persisted in remaining at their posts.
Finally on 9 June, 1791, the Assembly forbade the publication of
all Bulls or Decrees of the Court of Rome, at least until they
had been submitted to the legislative body and their publication
authorized. Thus Revolutionary France not only broke with Rome,
but wished to place a barrier between Rome and the Catholics of
France
The king's tormenting conscience was the chief reason for his
attempted flight (20-21 June, 1791). Before fleeing he had
addressed to the Assembly a declaration of his dissatisfaction
with the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and once more
protested against the moral violence which had compelled him to
accept such a document. Halted at Varennes, Louis XVI was
brought back on 25 June, and was suspended from his functions
till the completion of the Constitution, to which he took the
oath 13 Sept., 1791. On 30 Sept., 1791, the Constituent Assembly
dissolved, to make way for the Legislative Assembly, in which
none of the members of the Constituent Assembly could sit. The
Constituent Assembly had passed 2500 laws and reorganized the
whole French administration. Its chief error from a social
standpoint, which Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu calls a capital one,
was to pass the Chapelier Decree (15 June, 1791), which forbade
working people to band together and form associations "for their
so-called common interest". Led astray by their spirit of
individualism and their hatred for certain abuses of the old
corporations, the Constituents did not understand that the world
of labour should be organized. They were responsible for the
economic anarchy which reigned during the nineteenth century,
and the present syndicate movement as well as the efforts of the
social Catholics in conformity with the Encyclical "Rerum
novarum" marks a deep and decisive reaction against the work of
the Constituent Assembly.
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
When the Constituent Assembly disbanded (30 Sept., 1791), France
all was aflame concerning the religious question. More than half
the French people did not want the new Church, the factitious
creation of the law; the old the Church was ruined, demolished,
hunted down, and the general amnesty decreed by the Constituent
Assembly before disbanding could do nothing towards restoring
peace in the country where that Assembly's bungling work had
unsettled the consciences of individuals. The parties in the
Legislative Assembly were soon irreconcilable. The Feuillants,
on the Right, saw no salvation save in the Constitution; the
Girondins on the Left, and the Montagnards on the Extreme Left,
made ready for the Republic. There were men who, like the poet
Andre Chenier, dreamed of a complete Separation of Church and
State. "The priests", he wrote in a letter to the "Moniteur" (22
October, 1791), "will not trouble the Estates when no one is
concerned about them, and they will always trouble them while
anyone is concerned about them as at present." But the majority
of the members of the Legislative Assembly had sat in the
departmental or district assemblies; they had fought against the
non-juring priests and brought violent passions and a hostile
spirit to the Legislative Assembly. A report from Gensonne and
Gallois to the Legislative Assembly (9 October, 1791) on the
condition of the provinces of the West denounced the non-juring
priests as exciting the populace to rebellion and called for
measures against them. It accused them of complicity with the
emigres bishops. At Avignon the Revolutionary Lecuyer, having
been slain in a church, some citizens reputed to be partisans of
the pope were thrown into the ancient papal castle and strangled
(16-17 Oct., 1791). Calvados was also the scene of serious
disturbances.
The Legislative Assembly, instead of repairing the tremendous
errors of the Constituent Assembly, took up the question of the
non-juring priests. On 29 November, on the proposal of Franc,ois
de Neufchateau, it decided that if within eight days they did
not take the civil oath they should be deprived of all salary,
that they should be place under the surveillance of the
authorities, that if troubles arose where they resided they
should be sent away, that they should be imprisoned for a year
if they persisted in remaining and for two years if they were
convicted of having provoked disobedience to the king. Finally
it forbade non-juring priests the legal exercise of worship. It
also requested from the departmental directories lists of the
jurors and non-jurors, that it might, as it said, "stamp out the
rebellion which disguises itself under the pretended dissidence
in the exercise of the Catholic religion". Thus its decree ended
in a threat. But this decree was the object of a sharp conflict
between Louis XVI and the Assembly. On 9 Dec., 1791, the king
made his veto known officially. Parties began to form. On one
side were the king and the Catholics faithful to Rome, on the
other the Assembly and the priests who had taken the oath. The
legislative power was on one side, the executive on the other.
In March, 1792, the Assembly accused the ministers of Louis XVI;
the king replaced them by a Girondin ministry headed by
Dumouriez, with Roland, Servan, and Claviere among its members.
They had a double policy: abroad, war with Austria, and at home,
measures against the non-juring priests. Louis XVI, surrounded
by dangers, was also accused of duplicity; his secret
negotiations with foreign courts made it possible for his
enemies to say that he had already conspired against France.
A papal Brief of 19 March, 1792, renewed the condemnation of the
Civil Constitution and visited with major excommunication all
juring priests who after sixty days should not have retracted,
and all Catholics who remained faithful to these priests. The
Assembly replied by the Decree of 27 May, 1792, declaring that
all non-juring priests might be deported by the directory of
their department at the request of twenty citizens, and if they
should return after expulsion they would be liable to ten years
of imprisonment. Louis vetoed this decree. Thus arose a struggle
not only between Louis XVI and the Assembly, but between the
king and his ministry. On 3 June 1792, the Assembly decreed the
formation of a camp near Paris of 20,600 volunteers to guard the
king. At the ministerial council Roland read an insulting letter
to Louis, in which he called upon him to sanction the decrees of
November and May against the non-juring priests. He was
dismissed, whereupon the populace of Paris arose and invaded the
Tuileries (20 June, 1792). and for several hours the king and
his family were the objects of all manner of outrages. After the
public manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick in the name of the
powers in coalition against France (25 July, 1792) and the
Assembly's declaration of "Fatherland in danger" there came
petitions for the deposition of the king, who was accused of
being in communication with foreign rulers. On 10 August,
Santerre, Westermann, and Fournier l'Americain at the head of
the national guard attacked the Tuileries defended by 800 Swiss.
Louis refused to defend himself, and with his family sought
refuge in the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly passed a decree
which suspended the king's powers, drew up a plan of education
for the dauphin, and convoked a national convention. Louis XVI
was imprisoned in the Temple by order of the insurrectionary
Commune of Paris.
Madness spread through France caused by the threatened danger
from without; arrests of non-juring priests multiplied. In an
effort to make them give way. The Assembly decided (15 August)
that the oath should consist only of the promise to uphold with
all one's might liberty, equality, and the execution of the law,
or to die at one's post". But the non-juring priests remained
firm and refused even this second oath. On 26 August the
Assembly decreed that within fifteen days they should be
expelled from the kingdom, that those who remained or returned
to France should be deported to Guiana, or should be liable to
ten years imprisonment. It then extended this threat to the
priests, who, having no publicly recognized priestly duties, had
hitherto been dispensed from the oath, declaring that they also
might be expelled if they were convicted of having provoked
disturbances. This was the signal for a real civil war. The
peasants armed in La Vendee, Deux Sevres, Loire Inferieure,
Maine and Loire, Ile and Vilaine. This news and that of the
invasion of Champagne by the Prussian army caused hidden
influences to arouse the Parisian populaces hence the September
massacres. In the prisons of La Force, the Conciergerie, and the
Abbaye Saint Germain, at least 1500 Women, priests and soldiers
fell under the axe or the club. The celebrated tribune, Danton,
cannot be entirely acquitted of complicity in these massacres.
The Legislative Assembly terminated its career by two measures
against the Church: it deprived priests of the right to register
births etc., and authorize divorce. Laicizing the civil state
was not in the minds of the Constituents, but was the result of
the blocking of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. The
Legislative Assembly was induced to enact it because the
Catholics faithful to Rome would not have recourse to
Constitutional priests for registering of births, baptisms, and
deaths.
THE CONVENTION; THE REPUBLIC; THE REIGN OF TERROR
The opening of the National Convention (21 Sept., 1792) took
place the day following Dumouriez's victory at Valmy over the
Prussian troops. The constitutional bishop, Gregoire, proclaimed
the republic at the first session; he was surrounded in the
assembly by fifteen constitutional bishops and twenty-eight
constitutional priests. But the time was at hand when the
constitutional clergy in turn was to be under suspicion, the
majority of the Convention being hostile to Christianity itself.
As early as 16 November, 1792, Cambon demanded that the salaries
of the priests be suppressed and that thenceforth no religion be
subsidized by the State, but the motion was rejected for the
time being. Henceforth the Convention enacted all manner of
arbitrary political measures: it undertook the trial of Louis
XVI, and on 2 January, 1799, "hurled a kings head at Europe".
But from a religious standpoint it was more timid; it feared to
disturb the people of Savoy and Belgium, which its armies were
annexing to France. From 10 to 15 March, 1793, formidable
insurrections broke out in La Vendee, Anjou, and a part of
Brittany. At the same time Dumouriez, having been defeated at
Neerwinden, sought to turn his army against the Convention, and
he himself went over to the Austrians. The Convention took
fright; it instituted a Revolutionary Tribunal on 9 March and on
6 April the Committee of Public Safety, formidable powers, was
established.
Increasingly severe measures were taken chiefly against the
non-juring clergy. On 18 Feb., 1793, the Convention voted a
prize one hundred livres to whomsoever should denounce a priest
liable to deportation and who remained in France despite the
law. On 1 March the emigres were sentenced to perpetual
banishment and their property confiscated. On 18 March it was
decreed that any emigre or deported priest arrested on French
soil should be executed within twenty-four hours. On 23 April it
was enacted that all ecclesiastics, priests or monks, who had
not taken the oath prescribed by the Decree of 15 August, 1792,
should be transported to Guiana; even the priests who had taken
the oath should be treated likewise if six citizens should
denounce them for lack of citizenship. But despite all these
measures the non-juring priests remained faithful to Rome. The
pope had maintained in France an official internuncio, the Abbe
de Salamon, who kept himself in hiding and performed his duties
at the risk of his life, gave information concerning current
events, and transmitted orders. The proconsuls of the
Convention, Freron and Barras at Marseilles and Toulon, Tallien
at Bordeaux, Carrier at Nantes, perpetuated abominable
massacres. In Paris the Revolutionary Tribunal, carrying out the
proposals of the public accuser, Foquier-Tinville, inaugurated
the Reign of Terror. The proscription of the Girondins by the
Montagnards (2 June, 1793), marked a progress in demagogy. The
assassination of the bloodthirsty in demagogue Marat, by
Charlotte Corday 913 July 1793) gave rise to extravagant
manifestations in honour of Marat. But the provinces did not
follow this policy. News came of insurrections in Caen,
Marseilles, Lyons, and Toulon; and at the same time the
Spaniards were in Roussillon, the Piedmontese in Savoy, the
Austrians in Valenciennes, and the Vendeans defeated Kleber at
Torfou (Sept., 1793). The crazed Convention decreed a rising en
masse; the heroic resistance of Valenciennes and Mainz gave
Carnot time to organize new armies. At the same time the
Convention passed the Law of Suspects. (17 Sept., 1793), which
authorized the imprisonment of almost anyone and as a
consequence of which 30,000 were imprisoned. Informing became a
trade in France. Queen Marie Antoinette was beheaded 16 October,
1793. Fourteen Carmelites who were executed 17 July, 1794, were
declared Venerable by Leo XIII in 1902.
From a religious point of view a new feature arose at this
period -- the constitutional clergy, accused of sympathy with
the Girondins, came to be suspected almost as much as the
non-juring priests. Numerous conflicts arose between the
constitutional priests and the civil authorities with regard to
the decree of the Convention which did not permit the priests to
ask those intending to marry if they were baptized, had been to
confession, or were divorced. The constitutional bishops would
not submit to the Convention when it required them to give
apostate priests the nuptial blessing. Despite the example of
the constitutional bishop, Thomas Lindet, a member of the
Convention, who won the applause of the Assembly by ann his
marriage, despite the scandal given by Gobel, Bishop of Paris,
in appointing a married priest to a post in Paris the majority
of constitutional bishops remained hostile to the marriage of
priests. The conflict between them and the Convention became
notorious when, on 19 July, 1793, a decree of the Convention
decided that the bishops who directly or indirectly offered any
obstacle to the marriage of priests should be deported and
replaced. In October the Convention declared that the
constitutional priests themselves should be deported if they
were found wanting in citizenship. The measures taken by the
Convention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old
Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities
to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches,
proved that certain currents prevailed tending to the
dechristianization of France. On the one hand the rest of
decadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest; on the other
the Convention commissioned Leonard Bourdon (19 Sept., 1793) to
compile a collection of the heroic actions of Republicans to
replace the lives of the saints in the schools. The "missionary
representatives", sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted
down citizens suspected of religious practices, endeavoured to
constrain priests to marry, and threatened with deportation for
lack of citizenship priests who refused to abandon their posts.
Persecution of all religious ideas began. At the request of the
Paris Commune, Gobel, Bishop of Paris, and thirteen of his
vicars resigned at the bar of the Convention (7 November) and
their example was followed by several constitutional bishops.
The Montagnards who considered worship necessary replaced the
Catholic Sunday Mass by the civil mass of decadi. Having failed
to reform and nationalize Catholicism they endeavoured to form a
sort of civil cult, a development of the worship of the
fatherland which had been inaugurated at the feast of the
Federation. The Church of Notre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of
Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November.
The Goddesses of Reason and Liberty were not always the
daughters of low people; they frequently came of the middle
classes. Recent research has thrown new light on the history of
these cults. M. Aulard was the first to recognize that the idea
of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the
festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive
cults. Going deeper M. Mathiez developed the theory that
confronted by the blocking of the Civil Constitution, the
Conventionals, who had witnessed in the successive feasts of the
Federation the power of formulas on the minds of the masses,
wanted to create a real culte de la patrie, a sanction of faith
in the fatherland. On 23 November, 1793, Chaumette passed a law
alienating all churches in the capital. This example was
followed in the provinces, where all city churches and a number
of those in the country were closed to Catholic worship. The
Convention offered a prize for the abjuration of priests by
passing a decree which assured a pension to Priests who abjured,
and the most painful day of that sad period was 20 November,
1793, when men, women, and children dressed in Priestly garments
taken from the Church of St. Germain des Pres marched through
the hall of the Convention. Laloi, who presided, congratulated
them, saying they had "wiped out eighteen centuries of error".
Despite the part played by Chaumette and the Commune of Paris in
the work of violent dechristianization, M. Mathiez has proved
that it is not correct to lay on the Commune and the Exageres,
they were called, the entire responsibility, and that a
Moderate, an Indulgent, namely Thuriot, the friend of Danton,
was one of the most violent instigators. It is thus clear why
Robespierre who desired a reaction against these excesses,
should attack both Exageres and Indulgents.
Indeed a reactionary movement was soon evident. As early as 21
November, 1793, Robespierre complained of the "madmen who could
only revive fanaticism". On 5 December he caused the Convention
to adopt the text of a manifesto to the nations of Europe in
which the members declared that they sought to protect the
liberty of all creeds; on 7 December, he supported the motion of
the committee of public safety which reported the bad effect in
the provinces of the intolerant violence of the missionary
representatives, and which forbade in the future all threats or
violence contrary to liberty of worship. These decrees were the
cause of warfare between Robespierre an enthusiasts such as
Hebert and Clootz. At first Robespierre sent his enemies to the
scaffold; Hebert and Clootz were beheaded in March, 1704,
Chaumette and Bishop Gobel in April. But in this same month of
April Robespierre sent to the scaffold the Moderates, Desmoulins
and Danton, who wanted to stop the Terror, and became the master
of France with his lieutenants Couthon and Saint-Just. M. Aulard
regards Robespierre as having been hostile to the
dechristianization for religious and political motives; he
explains that Robespierre shared the admiration for Christ felt
by Rousseau's Vicar Savoyard and that he feared the evil effect
on the powers of Europe of the Convention's anti-religious
policy. M. Mathiez on the other hand considers that Robespierre
did not condemn the dechristianization in principle; that he
knew the common hostility to the Committee of Public Safety of
Moderates such as Thuriot and enthusiasts like Hebert; and that
on the information of Basire and Chabot he suspected both
parties of having furthered the fanatical measures of
dechristianization only to discredit the Convention abroad and
thus more easily to plot with the powers hostile to France.
Robespierre's true intentions are still an historical problem.
On 6 April, 1794, he commissioned Couthon to propose in the name
of the Committee of Public Safety that a feast be instituted in
honour of the Supreme Being, and on 7 May Robespierre himself
outlined in a long speech the plan of the new religion. He
explained that from the religious and Republican standpoint the
idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that
religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests
were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the
true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention
desired to have this speech translated into all languages and
adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French
people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the
immortality of the soul". The same decree states that freedom of
worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances
caused by the exercise of a religion those who "excite them by
fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations",
shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the
condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and
the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated
throughout France on 8 June, 1794, with aggressive splendour.
Whereas the Exageres wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and
in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines
were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should
have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and
the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea
of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it
and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under
the auspices of a Supreme Being.
The victories of the Republican armies, especially that of
Fleurus (July, 1794), reassured the patriots of the Convention;
those of Cholet, Mans, and Savenay, marked the checking of the
Vendean insurrection. Lyons and Toulon were recaptured, Alsace
was delivered, and the victory of Fleurus (26 June, 1794) gave
Belgium to France. While danger from abroad was decreasing,
Robespierre made the mistake of putting to vote in June the
terrible law of 22 Prairial, which still further shortened the
summary procedure of the Revolutionary tribunal and allowed
sentence to be passed almost without trial even on the members
of the Convention. The Convention took fright and the next day
struck out this last clause. Montagnards like Tallien,
Billaud-Varenne, and Collot d'Herbois, threatened by
Robespierre, joined with such Moderates as Boissy d'Anglas and
Durand Maillane to bring about the coup d'etat of 9 Thermidor
(27 July, 1794). Robespierre and his partisans were executed,
and the Thermidorian reaction began. The Commune of paris was
suppressed, the Jacobin Club closed, the Revolutionary tribunal
disappeared after having sent to the scaffold the public accuser
Fouquier-tinville and the Terrorist, Carrier, the author of the
noyades (drownings) of Nantes. The death of Robespierre was the
signal for a change of policy which proved of advantage to the
Church; many imprisoned priests were released and many emigre
priests returned. Not a single law hostile to Catholicism was
repealed, but the application of them was greatly relaxed. The
religious policy of the Convention became indecisive and
changeable. On 21 December 1794, a speech of the constitutional
bishop, Gregoire, claiming effective liberty of worship, aroused
violent murmurings in the Convention, but was applauded by the
people; and when in Feb., 1795, the generals and commissaries of
the Convention in their negotiations with the Vendeans promised
them the restoration of their religious liberties, the
Convention returned to the idea supported by Gregoire, and at
the suggestion of the Protestant, Boissy d'Anglas, it passed the
Law of 3 Ventose (21 Feb., 1795), which marked the
enfranchisement of the Catholic Church. This law enacted that
the republic should pay salaries to the ministers of no
religion, and that no churches should be reopened, but it
declared that the exercise of religion should not be disturbed,
and prescribed penalties for disturbers. Immediately the
constitutional bishops issued an Encyclical for the
Establishment of Catholic worship, but their credit was shaken.
The confidence of the faithful was given instead to the
non-juring priests who were returning by degrees. These priests
were soon so numerous that in April, 1795, the Convention
ordered them to depart within the month under pain of death.
This was a fresh outbreak of anti-Catholicism. With the
fluctuation which thenceforth characterized it the Convention
soon made a counter-movement. On 20 May, 1795, the assembly hall
was invaded by the mob and the deputy Feraud assassinated. These
violences of the Extremists gave some influence to the
Moderates, and 30 May, at the suggestion of the Catholic,
Lanjuinais, the Convention decreed that (Law of 11 Prairial) the
churches not confiscated should be place at the disposal of
citizens for the exercise of their religion, but that every
priest who wished to officiate in these churches should
previously take an oath of submission to the laws; those who
refused might legally hold services in private houses. This oath
of submission to the laws was much less serious than the oaths
formerly prescribed by the Revolutionary authorities, and the
Abbe Sicard has shown how Emery, Superior General of St.
Sulpice, Bausset, Bishop of Alais and other ecclesiastics were
inclined to a policy of pacification and to think that such an
oath might be taken.
While it seemed to be favouring a more tolerant policy the
Convention met with diplomatic successes, the reward of the
military victories: the treaties of Paris with Tuscany, of the
Hague with the Batavian Republic, of Basle with Spain, gave to
France as boundaries the Alps, the Rhine, and the Meuse. But the
policy of religious pacification was not lasting. Certain
periods of the history of the Convention justify M. Champion's
theory that certain religious measures taken by the
Revolutionists were forced upon them by circumstances. The
descent of the emigres on the Breton coasts, to be checked by
Hoche at Quiberon, aroused fresh attacks on the priests. On 6
Sept., 1795 (Law of 20 Fructidor), the Convention exacted the
oath of submission to the laws even of priests who officiated in
private houses. The Royalist insurrection of 13 Vendemiaire, put
down by Bonaparte, provoked a very severe decree against
deported priests who should be found on French territory; they
were to be sentenced to perpetual banishment. Thus at the time
when the Convention was disbanding, churches were separated from
the State. In theory worship was free; the Law of 29 Sept., 1795
(7 Vendemiaire), on the religious policy, though still far from
satisfactory to the clergy, was nevertheless an improvement on
the laws of the Terror, but anarchy and the spirit of
persecution still disturbed the whole country. Nevertheless
France owes to the Convention a number of lasting creations: the
Ledger of the Public Debt, the Ecole Polytechnique, the
Conservatory of Arts and Crafts, the Bureau of Longitudes, the
Institute of France, and the adoption of the decimal system of
weights and measures. The vast projects drawn up with regard to
primary, secondary and higher education had almost no results.
THE DIRECTORY
In virtue of the so-called "Constitution of the year III",
promulgated by the Convention 23 Sept., 1795, a Directory of
five members (27 Oct., 1795) became the executive, and the
Councils of Five Hundred and of the Ancients, the legislative
power. At this time the public treasuries were empty, which was
one reason why the people came by degrees to feel the necessity
of a strong restorative power. The Directors Carnot, Barras,
Letourneur, Rewbell, La Reveilliere-Lepeaux were averse to
Christianity, and in the separation of Church and State saw only
a means of annihilating the Church. They wished that even the
Constitutional episcopate, though they could not deny its
attachment to the new regime, should become extinct by degrees,
and when the constitutional bishops died they sought to prevent
the election of successors, and multiplied measures against the
non-juring priests. The Decree of 16 April, 1796, which made
death the penalty for, provoking any attempt to overthrow the
Republican government was a threat held perpetually over the
heads of the non-juring priests. That the Directors really
wished to throw difficulties in the way of all kinds of
religion, despite theoretical declarations affirming liberty of
worship is proved by the Law of 11 April, 1796, which forbade
the use of bells and all sorts of public convocation for the
exercise of religion, under penalty of a year in prison, and, in
case of a second offense of deportation. The Directory having
ascertained that despite police interference some non-juring
bishops were officiating publicly in Paris, and that before the
end of 1796 more than thirty churches or oratories had been
opened to non-juring priests in Paris, laid before the Five
Hundred a plan which, after twenty days, allowed the expulsion
from French soil, without admission to the oath prescribed by
the Law of Vendemiaire, all priests who had not taken the
Constitutional Oath prescribed in 1790, or the Oath of Liberty
and Equality prescribed in 1792; those who after such time
should be found in France would be put to death. But amid the
discussions to which this project gave rise, the revolutionary
Socialist conspiracy of Babeuf was discovered, which showed that
danger lay on the Left; and on @5 Aug., 1796, the dreadful
project which had only been passed with much difficulty by the
Five Hundred was rejected by the Ancients.
The Directory began to feel that its policy of religious
persecution was no longer followed by the Councils. It learned
also that Bonaparte, who in Italy led the armies of the
Directory from victory to victory, displayed consideration for
the pope. Furthermore, the electors themselves showed that they
desired a change of policy. The elections of 20 may, 1797,
caused the majority of Councils to pass from the Left to the
Right. Pichegru became president of the Five Hundred, a
Royalist, Barthelemy, became one of the Five Directors. Violent
discussions which took place from 26 June to 18 July, in which
Royer-Collard distinguished himself, brought to the vote the
proposal of the deputy Dubruel for the abolition of all laws
against non-juring priests passed since 1791. The Directors,
alarmed by what they considered a reactionary movement,
commissioned General Augereau to effect the coup d'etat of 18
Fructidor (4 Sept., 1797); the elections of 49 departments were
quashed, two Directors, Carnot and Barthelemy, proscribed, 53
deputies deported, and laws against the emigre and non-juring
priests restored to their vigour. Organized hunting for these
priests took place throughout France; the Directory cast
hundreds of them on the unhealthy shore of Sinnamary, Guiana,
where they died. At the same time the Directory commissioned
Berthier to make the attack on the Papal States and the pope,
from which Bonaparte had refrained. The Roman Republic was
proclaimed in 1798 and Pius VI was taken prisoner to Valence. An
especially odious persecution was renewed in France against the
ancient Christian customs; it was known as the decadaire
persecution. Officials and municipalities were called upon to
overwhelm with vexations the partisans of Sunday and to restore
the observance of decadi. The rest of that day became compulsory
not only for administrations and schools, but also for business
and industry. Marriages could only be celebrated on decadi at
the chief town of each canton.
Another religious venture of this period was that of
Theophilanthropists, who wished to create a spiritualist church
without dogmas, miracles, priesthood or sacraments, a sort of
vague religiosity, similar to the "ethical societies of the
United States." Contrary to what has been asserted for one
hundred years, M. Mathiez has proved that Theophilanthropism was
not founded by the director La Reveilliere-Lepeaux. It was the
private initiative of a former Girondin, the librarian Chemin
Dupontes, which gave rise to this cult; Valentine Hauy,
instructor of the blind and former Terrorist, and the
physiocrat, Dupont de Nemours, collaborated with him. During its
early existence, the new Church was persecuted by agents of
Cochon, Minister of Police, who was the tool of Camot, and it
was only for a short time, after the coup d'etat of 18
Fructidor, that the the Theophanthropists benefited by the
protection of La Reveilliere. In proportion to the efforts of
the Directory for the culte decadaire, the Theophilanthropists
suffered and were persecuted; in Paris, they were sometimes
treated even worse than the Catholics, Catholic priests being at
times permitted to occupy the buildings connected with certain
churches while the Theophilanthropists were driven out. On a
curious memoir written after 18 Fructidor entitled "Des
circonstances actuelles qui peuvent terminer la Revolution et
des principes qui doivent fonder la Republic en France", the
famous Madame de Stael, who was a Protestant, declared herself
against Theophilanthropy; like many Protestants, she hoped that
Protestantism would become the State religion of the Republic.
Through its clumsy and odious religious policy the Directory
exposed itself to serious difficulties. Disturbed by the
anti-religious innovations, the Belgian provinces revolted; 6000
Belgian priests were proscribed. Brttany, Anjou. and Maine again
revolted, winning over Normandy. Abroad the prestige of the
French armies was upheld by were upheld by Bonaparte in Egypt,
but they were hated on the Continent, and in 1799 were compelled
to evacuate most of Italy. Bonaparte's return and the coup
d'etat of 18 Brumaire (10 November 1799) were necessary to
strengthen the glory of the French armies and to restore peace
to the country and to consciences.
TOURNEUX, Bibl. de l'hist. de Paris pendant la Revolution
(Paris, 1896-1906); TUETEY, Repertoire des sources manuscrites
de l'hist de Paris sous la Revolution, 7 vols. already published
(Paris, 1896-1906); FORTESCUE, List of the three collections of
books, pamphlets, and journals in the British Museum relating to
the French Revolution (London, 1899).
Reprint of the Moniteur Universel (1789-99); the two collections
in course of publication of Documents inedits sur l'hist.
economique de la Revolution franc,aise; and Documents sur
l'hist. de Paris pendant la Revolution franc,aise; the works of
BARRUEL (q.v.); BOURGIN, La france et Rome de 1788 `a 1797,
regeste des depeches du cardinal secretaire d'etat, tiree du
fond des "Vescovi" des archives secretes du Vatican (Paris,
1909), fasc. 102 of the Library of French Schools of Athens and
Rome; among numerous memoirs on france on the eve of the
Revolution may be mentioned: YOUNG, Travels in France, ed.
BETHAM-EDWARDS (London, 1889); and on the Revolution itself:
Memoires de l'internounce Salamon, ed. BRIDIER (Paris, 1890);
GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, Diary and Letters (New York, 1882); Un sejour
en France 1792 `a 1795, lettres d'un temoin de la Revolution
franc,aise, tr. TAINE (Paris, 1883); the work of the famous
BURKE, Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed, SELBY
(London, 1890), remains an important criticism of Revolutionary
ideas.
General Works -- THIERS, Hist. de la Revolution franc,aise (tr.
Paris, 1823-27); MIGNET, Hist. de la Revolution franc,aise
(Paris, 1824); MICHELET, Hist. de la Revolution franc,aise
(Paris, 1847-1853); LOUIS BLANK, Hist. de la Revolution
franc,aise (Paris, 1847-1863; TOCQUEVILLE, L'ancien regime et la
Revolution (Paris, 1856); TAINE, Les Origines de la France
contemporaine: la Revolution (tr. Paris, 1878-84); SOREL,
L'Europe et la Revolution franc,aise (Paris, 1885-1904); SYBEL,
Gesch. der Revolutionszeit (Dusseldorf, 1853-57); CHUQUET, Les
guerres de la Revolution (Paris, 1889-1902); AULARD, Hist.
Politique de la Revolution franc,aise (Paris, 1901); IDEM,
Etudes et lec,ons sur la Revolution franc,aise (Paris,
1893-1910); GAUTHEROT, Cours professes `a l'Institut Catholique
de Paris sur la Revolution franc,aise, a periodical begun at the
end of 1910 and promising to be very important; MADELIN, La
Revolution (Paris, 1911), a summary commendable for the
exactness of its information and its effort at justice in the
most delicate questions; The Cambridge Modern History, planned
by the late LORD ACTON, II the French Revolution (Cambridge,
1904); MacCARTHY, The French Revolution (London, 1890-97); Ross,
The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era (Cambridge, 1907); LEGG,
Select Documents Illustrative of the History of the French
Revolution (Oxford, 1905); GIBBS, Men and Women of the French
Revolution (London, 1905).
Monographs and Special Works -- AULARD, Taine, historien de la
Revolution franc,aise (Paris, 1907); COCHIN, La crise de l'hist
revolutionaire: Taine et M. Aulard (Paris, 1909); BORD, La
francmac,onnerie en France des origiines `a 1815, bk. I, Les
ouvriers de l'idee revolutionaire (Paris, 1909); IDEM, La
conspiration revolutionnaire de 1789, les complices, les
victimes (Paris, 1909); FUNCK-BRENTANO, Legendes et archives de
la Bastille (Paris, 1898); MALLET, Mallet du Pan and the French
Revolution (London, 1902); FLING, Mirabeau and the French
Revolution (London, 1906); LENOTRE, Memoires et souvenirs sur la
Revolution et l'Empire (Paris, 1907-9); IDEM, Paris
revolutionaire, vieilles maisons, vieux papiers (Paris,
1900-10); WARWICK, Robespierre and the French Revolution
(Philadelphia, 1909); FUNCK-BRENTANO, Legendes et archives de la
Bastille (Paris, 1898); BLIARD, Fraternite revolutionnaire,
etudes et recits d'apres des documents inedits (Paris, 1909);
MORTIMER TERNAUX, Hist. de la Terreur (Paris, 1862-1881);
WALLON, Hist. du tribunal revolutionnaire (Paris, 1880-2); IDEM,
La journeedu 31 Mai et le federalisme en 1793 (Paris, 1886);
IDEM, Les representants en mission (Paris, 1888-90); DAUDET,
Hist. de l'emigration pendant la Revolution (Paris, 1904-7);
LALLEMAND, La Revolution et les pauvres (Paris, 1898); ALGER,
Englishment in the French Revolution (London, 1889); DOWDEN, The
French Revolution and English Literture (London, 1897); CESTRE,
La Revolution franc,aise et les poetes anglais (Paris, 1906).
Religious History. -- SICARD, L'ancien clerge de France II,III
(Paris, 1902-3) IDEM, L'education morale et civique avant et
pendant la Revolution (Paris, 1884); PIERRE DE LA GORCE, Hist.
religieuse de la Revolution franc,aise I (Paris, 1909); MATHIEZ,
rome et le clerge franc,aise sous la Constituante (Paris, 1911);
IDEM, La theophilanthropie et le culte decadaire (Paris, 1904);
IDEM, Contribution `a l'histoire religieuse de la Revolution
Franc,aise (Paris, 1907); IDEM, La Revolution et l'Eglise
(Paris, 1910); AULARD, La Revolution franc,aise et les
congregations (Paris, 1911); IDEM, Le culte de la raison et le
culte de l'Etre supreme (Paris, 1907); IDEM, Le culte de la
separation de 'Eglise et de l'Etat en 1794 (Paris, 1903);
PIERRE, La Deportation ecclesiastique sous le Directoire (Paris,
1906).
GEORGES GOYAU
Rex Gloriose Martyrum
Rex Gloriose Martyrum
Rex Gloriose Martyrum, the hymn at Lauds in the Common of
Martyrs (Commune plurimorum Martyrum) in the Roman Breviary. lit
comprises three strophes of four verses in Classical iambic
dimeter, the verses rhyming in couplets, together with a fourth
concluding strophe (or doxology) in unrhymed verses varying for
the season. The first stanza will serve to illustrate the metric
and rhymic scheme:
Rex gloriose martyrum,
Corona confitentium,
Qui respuentes terrea
Perducis ad coelestia.
The hymn is of uncertain date and unknown authorship, Mone
(Lateinische Hymnen des Mittelalters, III, 143, no. 732)
ascribing it to the sixth century and Daniel (Thesaurus
Hymnologicus, IV, 139) to the ninth or tenth century. The Roman
Breviary text is a revision, in the interest of Classical
prosody, of an older form (given by Daniel, I, 248). The
corrections are: terrea instead of terrena in the line "Qui
respuentes terrena"; parcisque for parcendo in the line
"Parcendo confessoribus"; inter Martyres for in Martyribus in
the line "Tu vincis in Martyribus"; "Largitor indulgentiae" for
the line "Donando indulgentiam". A non-prosodic correction is
intende for appone in the line "Appone nostris vocibus". Daniel
(IV, 139) gives the Roman Breviary text, but mistakenly includes
the uncorrected line "Parcendo confessoribus". lie places after
the hymn an elaboration of it in thirty-two lines, found written
on leaves added to a Nuremberg book and intended to accommodate
the hymn to Protestant doctrine. This elaborated form uses only
lines 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 of the original. Two of the added
strophes may be quoted here to illustrate the possible reason
(but also a curious misconception of Catholic doctrine in the
apparent assumption of the lines) for the modification of the
original hymn:
Velut infirma vascula
Ictus inter lapideos
Videntur sancti martyres,
Sed fide durant fortiter.
Non fidunt suis meritis,
Sed sola tua gratia
Agnoscunt se persistere
In tantis cruciatibus.
Of the thirteen translations of the original hymn into English.
nine are by Catholics. To the list given in JULIAN, Dictionary
of Hymnology, 958, should be added the versions of BAGSHAWE,
Breviary Hymns and Missal Sequences (London, 1900), 166, and
DONAHOE, Early Christian Hymns (New York, 1908), 50. For many
Manuscript references and readings, see BLUME, Analecta Hymnica,
LI (Leipzig, 1909), 128-29; IDEM, Der Cursus s. Benedicti
Nursini (Leipzig, 1909), 67.
H.T. HENRY
Rex Sempiterne Caelitum
Rex Sempiterne Caelitum
The Roman Breviary hymn for Matins of Sundays and weekdays
during the Paschal Time (from Low Sunday to Ascension Thursday).
Cardinal Thomasius ("Opera omnia", II, Rome, 1747, 370) gives
its primitive form in eight strophes, and Vezzosi conjectures,
with perfect justice, that this is the hymn mentioned both by
Caesarius (died 542) and Aurelianus (died circa 550) of Arles,
in their "Rules for Virgins", under the title "Rex aeterne
domine". Pimont (op. cit. infra, III, 95) agrees with the
conjecture, and present-day hymnologists confirm it without
hesitation. The hymn is especially interesting for several
reasons. In his "De arte metrica" (xxiv) the Ven. Bede selects
it from amongst "Alii Ambrosiani non pauci" to illustrate the
difference between the metre of Classical iambics and the
accentual rhythms imitating them. Ordinarily brief in his
comment, he nevertheless refers to it (P. L., XC, 174) as "that
admirable hymn . . . fashioned exquisitely after the model of
iambic metre" and quotes the first strophe:
Rex aeterne Domine,
Rerum Creator omnium,
Qui eras ante saecula
Semper cum patre filius.
Pimont (op. cit., III, 97) points out that, in its original
text, it is amongst all the hymns, the one assuredly which best
evidences the substitution of accent for prosodical quantity,
and that the (unknown) author gives no greater heed to the laws
of elision than to quantity "qui eras", "mundi in primordio",
"plasmasti hominem", "tuae imagini", etc. The second strophe
illustrates this well:
Qui mundi in primordio
Adam plasmasti hominem,
Qui tuae imagini
Vultum dedisti similem.
Following the law of binary movement (the alternation of arsis
and thesis), the accent is made to shorten long syllables and to
lengthen short ones, in such wise that the verses, while using
the external form of iambic dimeters, are purely rhythmic. Under
Urban VIII, the correctors of the hymns omitted the fourth
stanza and, in their zeal to turn the rhythm into Classical
iambic dimeter, altered every line except one. Hymnologists,
Catholic and non-Catholic alike, are usually severe in their
judgment of the work of the correctors; but in this instance,
Pimont, who thinks the hymn needed no alteration at their hands,
nevertheless hastens to add that "never, perhaps, were they
better inspired". And it is only just to say that, as found now
in the Roman Breviary, the hymn is no less vigorous than
elegant.
PIMONT, Les hymnes du breviaire romain, III (Paris, 1884),
93-100, gives the old and the revised text, supplementary
stanzas, and much comment. Complete old text with various
Manuscript readings in Hymnarium Sarisburiense (London, 1851),
95, and in DANIEL, Thesaurus hymnol., I (Halle, 1841), 85
(together with Rom. Brev. text and notes). Text (8 strophes)
With English version, notes, plainsong and other settings in
Hymns, Ancient and Modern, Historical Edition (London, 1909),
205-7. Old text, with many Manuscript references and readings,
and notes, in BLUME, Der Cursus s. Benedicti Nursini (Leipzig,
1909), 111-13 (cf, also the alphabetical index). For first lines
of translations etc., JULIAN, Dict. of Hymnology (London, 1907),
s. vv. Rex aeterne Domine and Rex sempiterne coelitum. To his
list should be added BAGSHAWE, Breviary Hymns and Missal
Sequences (London, 1900), 78, and DONAHOE, Early Christian Hymns
(New York, 1908), 22. The translation in BUTE, The Roman
Breviary (Edinburgh, 1879), is by Moultrie, an Anglican
clergyman.
H. T. HENRY.
Anthony Rey
Anthony Rey
An educator and Mexican War chaplain, born at Lyons, 19 March,
1807; died near Ceralvo, Mexico, 19 Jan., 1847. He studied at
the Jesuit college of Fribourg, entered the novitiate of that
Society, 12 Nov., 1827, and subsequently taught at Fribourg and
Sion in Valais, In 1840 he was sent to the United States,
appointed professor of philosophy in Georgetown College, and in
1843 transferred to St. Joseph's Church in Philadelphia. He
became assistant to the Jesuit provincial of Maryland, pastor of
Trinity Church, Georgetown, and vice-president of the college
(1845). Appointed chaplain in the U. S. Army in 1846, he
ministered to the wounded and dying at the siege of Monterey
amid the greatest dangers; after the capture of the city, he
remained with the army at Monterey and preached to the rancheros
of the neighbourhood. Against the advice of the U. S. officers,
he set out for Matamoras, preaching to a congregation of
Americans and Mexicans at Ceralvo. It is conjectured that he was
killed by a band under the leader Canales, as his body was
discovered, pierced with lances, a few days later. He left
letters dating from November, 1846, which were printed in the
"Woodstock Letters" (XVII, 149-50, 152-55, 157-59).
DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque, VI, 1689; APPLETONS'
Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York, 1888), s. v.
N. A. WEBER
William Reynolds
William Reynolds
(RAINOLDS, RAYNOLDS, REGINALDUS)
Reynolds, William, born. at Pinhorn near Exeter, about 1544;
died at Antwerp, 24 August, 1594, the second son of Richard
Rainolds, and elder brother of John Rainolds, one of the chief
Anglican scholars engaged on the "Authorized Version" of the
Bible. Educated at Winchester School, he became fellow of New
College, Oxford (1560-1572). He was converted partly by the
controversy between Jewel and Harding, and partly by the
personal influence of Dr. Allen. In 1575 he made a public
recantation in Rome, and two years later went to Douai to study
for the priesthood. He removed with the other collegians from
Douai to Reims in 1578 and was ordained priest at Chalons in
April, 1580. He then remained at the college, lecturing on
Scripture and Hebrew, and helping Gregory Martin in translating
the Reims Testament. Some years before his death he had left the
college to become chaplain to the Beguines at Antwerp. He
translated several of the writings of Allen and Harding into
Latin and wrote a "Refutation" of Whitaker's attack on the Reims
version (Paris, 1583); "De justa reipublicae christianae in
reges impios et haereticos authoritate" (Paris, 1590), under the
name of Rossaeus; a treatise on the Blessed Sacrament (Antwerp,
1593); "Calvino-Turcismus" (Antwerp, 1597).
KIRBY, Annals of Winchester College (London, 1892); FOSTER,
Alumni Ozonienses (Oxford. 1891); Douay Diaries (London, 1878);
WOOD, Athenae Ozonienses (London, 1813); PITTS, De illustribus
Angliae scriptoribus (Paris, 1619); DODD. Church History, II
(Brussels vere Wolverhampton, 1737-42); GILLOW in Biog. Dict.
Eng. Cath., s. v.; RIGG in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. Rainolds.
EDWIN BURTON.
Rhaetia
Rhaetia
(RHAETORUM).
Prefecture Apostolic in Switzerland; includes in general the
district occupied by the Catholics belonging to the
Rhaeto-Romanic race in the canton of the Grisons (Graubuenden).
The prefecture is bounded on the north by the Praettigau, on the
south by Lombardy, on the east by the Tyrol, on the west by the
cantons of Tessin (Ticino), Uri, and Glarus. During the
sixteenth century the greater part of the inhabitants of the
Grisons became Calvinists. In 1621 Paul V, at the entreaty of
Bishop John Flugi of Coire (Chur) and Archduke Leopold of
Austria, sent thither Capuchin missionaries from Brixen in the
Tyrol; the first superior was P. Ignatius of Cosnigo, who
resided in the mission (1621-45) and conducted it under the
title of prefect Apostolic. The best known of the missionaries
is St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen, who was martyred. After the death
of P. Ignatius the mission was cared for by the Capuchin
province of Brixen, represented in the mission by a sub-prefect.
For a long time after the suppression of the religious orders by
Napoleon, the mission was without an administrator; upon the
restoration of the order, Capuchins from various provinces were
sent into the mission. At present it is under the care of
Capuchins of the Roman province. It has 22 parishes, in three of
which the majority of inhabitants speak Italian; 52 churches and
chapels; 40 schools for boys and girls; 7200 Catholics; 25
Capuchins. The prefect Apostolic lives at Sagens.
BUeCHI, Die kath. Kirche in der Schweiz (Munich, 1902), 89;
Missiones Catholicae (Rome, 1907), 103; MAYER, Gesch. des
Bistums Chur (Stans, 1907), not yet completed.
JOSEPH LINS.
Rhaphanaea
Rhaphanaea
A titular see in Syria Secunda, suffragan of Apamea. Rhaphanaea
is mentioned in ancient times only by Josephus (Bel. Jud., VII,
5, 1), who says that in that vicinity there was a river which
flowed six days and ceased on the seventh, probably an
intermittent spring now called Fououar ed-Deir, near Rafanieh, a
village of the vilayet of Alep in the valley of the Oronte. The
ancient name was preserved. At the time of Ptolemy (V, 14, 12),
the Third Legion (Gallica) was stationed there. Hierocles
(Synecdemus, 712, 8) and Georgius Cyprius, 870 (Gelzer, "Georgii
Cyprii descriptio orbis romani", 44) mention it among the towns
of Syria Secunda. The crusaders passed through it at the end of
1099; it was taken by Baldwin and was given to the Count of
Tripoli ("Historiens des croisades", passim; Rey in "Bulletin de
la Societe des antiquaires de France", Paris, 1885, 266). The
only bishops of Rhaphanaea known are (Le Quien, "Oriens
christianus", II, 921): Bassianus, present at the Council of
Nicaea, 325; Gerontius at Philippopolis, 344; Basil at
Constantinople, 381; Lampadius at Chalcedon, 451; Zoilus about
518; Nonnus, 536. The see is mentioned as late as the tenth
century in the "Notitia episcopatuum" of Antioch (Vailhe "Echos
d'Orient", X, 94).
SMITH, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. geogr., s. v.; MUeLLER, notes on
Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 973.
S. PETRIDES.
Joseph Gabriel Rheinberger
Joseph Gabriel Rheinberger
A composer and organist, born at Vaduz, in the Principality of
Lichtenstein, Bavaria, 17 March, 1839; died at Munich, 25 Nov.,
1901. When seven years old, he already served as organist in his
parish church, and at the age of eight composed a mass for three
voices. After enjoying for a short time the instruction of
Choir-master Schmutzer in Feldkirch, he attended the
conservatory at Munich from 1851 to 1854, and finished his
musical education with a course under Franz Lachner. In 1859 he
was appointed professor of the theory of music and organ at the
conservatory, a position which he held until a few months before
his death. Besides his duties as teacher he acted successively
as organist at the court Church of St. Michael, conductor of the
Munich Oratorio Society, and instructor of the solo artists at
the royal opera. In 1867 he received the title of royal
professor, and became inspector of the newly established royal
school for music, now called the Royal Academy of Music. In 1877
he was promoted to the rank of royal court conductor, which
position carried with it the direction of the music in the royal
chapel. Honoured by his prince with the title of nobility and
accorded the honorary degree of Doctor of Philosophy by the
Munich University, Rheinberger for more than forty years wielded
as teacher of many of the most gifted young musicians of Europe
and America, perhaps more influence than any of his
contemporaries. As a composer he was remarkable for his power of
invention, masterful technique, and a noble, solid style. Among
his two hundred compositions are oratorios (notably
"Christoforus" and "Monfort"); two operas; cantatas for soli,
chorus, and orchestra ("The Star of Bethlehem", "Toggenburg",
"Klarchen auf Eberstein" etc.); smaller works for chorus and
orchestra; symphonies ("Wallenstein"), overtures, and chamber
music for various combinations of instruments, Most important of
all his instrumental works are his twenty sonatas for organ, the
most notable productions in this form since Mendelssohn.
Rheinberger wrote many works to liturgical texts, namely, twelve
masses (one for double chorus, three for four voices a cappella,
three for women's voices and organ, two for men's voices and one
with orchestra), a requiem, Stabat Mater, and a large number of
motets, and smaller pieces. Rheinbergen's masses rank high as
works of art, but some of them are defective in the treatment of
the text. Joseph Renner, Jr., has recently remedied most of
these defects, and made the masses available for liturgical
purposes.
KRAYER, Joseph Rheinberger (Ratisbon, 1911); RENNER,
Rheinberger's Messen in Kirchen-musikalisches Jahrbuch
(Ratisbon, 1909).
JOSEPH OTTEN
Rhesaena
Rhesaena
A titular see in Osrhoene, suffragan of Edessa. Rhesaena
(numerous variations of the name appear in ancient authors) was
an important town at the northern extremity of Mesopotamia near
the sources of the Chaboras (now Khabour), on the way from
Carrhae to Nicephorium about eighty miles from Nisibis and forty
from Dara; Near by Gordian III fought the Persians in 243. Its
coins show that it was a Roman colony from the time of Septimus
Severus. The "Notitia dignitatum" (ed. Boecking, I, 400)
represents it as under the jurisdiction of the governor or Dux
of Osrhoene. Hierocles (Synecdemus, 714, 3) also locates it in
this province but under the name of Theodosiopolis; it had in
fact obtained the favour of Theodosius the Great and taken his
name. It was fortified by Justinian. In 1393 it was nearly
destroyed by Tamerlane's troops. To-day under the name of
Ras-el-'Ain, it is the capital of a caza in the vilayet of
Diarbekir and has only 1500 inhabitants. Le Quien (Oriens
christianus, II, 979) mentions nine bishops of Rhesaena:
Antiochus, present at the Council of Nicaea (325); Eunomius, who
(about 420) forced the Persians to raise the siege of the town;
John, at the Council of Antioch (444); Olympius at Chalcedon
(451); Andrew (about 490); Peter, exiled with Sevenian (518);
Ascholius, his successor, a Monophysite; Daniel (550);
Sebastianus (about 600), a correspondent of St. Gregory the
Great. The see is again mentioned in the tenth century in a
Greek "Notitiae episcopatuum" of the Patriarchate of Antioch
(Vailhe, in "Echos d'Orient", X, 94). Le Quien (ibid., 1329 and
1513) mentions two Jacobite bishops: Scalita, author of a hymn
and of homilies, and Theodosius (1035). About a dozen others are
known.
Revue de l'Orient chret. VI (1901), 203; D'HERBELOT, Bibl.
orientale, I, 140; III, 112; RITTER. Erdkunde, XI, 375; SMITH,
Dict. Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v., with bibliography of
ancient authors; MUeLLER, notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 1008;
CHAPOT, La frontiere de l'Euphrate de Pompee `a la conquete
arabe (Paris, 1907). 302.
S. PETRIDES
Rhinocolura
Rhinocolura
A titular see in Augustamnica Prima, suffragan of Pelusium.
Rhinocolura or Rhinocorura was a maritime town so situated on
the boundary of Egypt and Palestine that ancient geographers
attributed it sometimes to one country and sometimes to the
other. Its history is unknown. Diodorus Siculus (I, 60, 5)
relates that it must have been founded by Actisanes, King of
Ethiopia, who established there convicts whose noses had been
cut off; this novel legend was invented to give a Greek meaning
to the name of the town. Strabo (XVI, 781) says that it was
formerly the great emporium of the merchandise of India and
Arabia, which was unloaded at Leuce Come, on the eastern shore
of the Red Sea, whence it was transported via Petra to
Rhinocolura, It is identified usually with the present fortified
village El Anish, which has 400 inhabitants, excluding the
garrison, situated half a mile from the sea, and has some ruins
of the Roman period. It was taken by the French in 1799, who
signed there in 1800 the treaty by which they evacuated Egypt.
To-day it and its vicinity are occupied by Egypt, after having
been for a long period claimed by Turkey. The village is near a
stream which bears its name (Wadi el-Arish), and receives its
waters from central Sinai; it does not flow in winter, but is
torrential after heavy rain. It is the "nahal Misraim", or
stream of Egypt, frequently mentioned in the Bible (Gen., xv,
18, etc.), as marking on the south-west the frontier of the
Promised Land. Instead of the ordinary translation of the Hebrew
name, the Septuagint in Is., xxvii, 12, render it by
Hrinokoroura; see St. Jerome (In Isaiam, XXVII, 12 in P. L.,
XXIV, 313).
Le Quien (Oriens Christianus, II, 541) gives a list of thirteen
bishops of Rhinocolura: the first does not belong to it. A
Coptic manuscript also wrongly names a bishop said to have
assisted in 325 at the Council of Nice. The first authentic
titular known is St. Melas, who suffered exile under Valens and
is mentioned on 16 January in the Roman Martyrology. He was
succeeded by his brother Solon. Polybius was the disciple of St.
Epiphanius of Cyprus, whose life he wrote. Hermogenes assisted
at the Council of Ephesus (431), was sent to Rome by St. Cyril,
and received many letters from his suffragan St. Isidore. His
successor Zeno defended Eutyches at the Second Council of
Ephesus (451). Other bishops were: Alphius, the Massalian
heretic; Ptolemy, about 460, Gregory, 610. Of the other bishops
on the list one did not belong to Rhinocolura; the other three
are Coptic heretics.
RELAND, Palaestina, 285, 969 sq.; SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman
Geogr., s. v.; MUeLLER, notes on Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, 1, 683;
VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Egypte (torrent ou ruisseau
d'); AMELINEAU, Geoqraphie de l'Egypte `a l'epoque copte, 404;
RITTER, Erdkunde, XVI, 143; XVI, 39, 41.
S. PETRIDES
Rhithymna
Rhithymna
(RHETHYMNA)
A titular see of Crete, suffragan of Gortyna, mentioned by
Ptolemy, III, 15, Pliny, IV, 59, and Stephen of Byzantium.
Nothing is known of its ancient history but some of its coins
are extant. It still exists under the Greek name of Rhethymnon
(Turkish, Resmo, It. and Fr. Retimo). It is a small port on the
north side of the island thirty-seven miles south-west of
Candia; it has about 10,000 inhabitants (half Greeks, half
Mussulmans), and some Catholics who have a church and school.
Rhithymna exports oil and soap. During the occupation of Crete
by the Venetians it became a Latin see. According to Corner
(Creta sacra, II, 138 sq.), this see is identical with Calamona.
For a list of twenty-four bishops (1287 to 1592) see Eubel
(Hier. cath. med. aevi, I, 161; II, 128; III, 161). Three other
names are mentioned by Corner from 1611 to 1641. The Turks who
had already ravaged the city in 1572, captured it again in 1646.
At present the Greeks have a bishop there who bears the combined
titles of Rhethymnon and Aulopotamos. The date of the foundation
of the see is unknown. It is not mentioned in the Middle Ages in
any of the Greek "Notitiae episcopatuum".
SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v.
S. PETRIDES.
Rhizus
Rhizus
( Rizous.)
A titular see of Pontus Polemoniacus suffragan of Neocaesarea,
mentioned by Ptolemy (V, 6) as a port on the Black Sea (Euxine);
it is referred to also in other ancient geographical documents,
but its history is unknown, Procopius ("De bello gothico", IV,
2), tells us that the town was of some importance and that it
was fortified by Justinian. He calls it Rhizaion, and it is so
styled in the "Notitiae Episcopatuum". It was originally a
suffragan of Neocaesarea, then an "autocephalous" archdiocese,
finally a metropolitan see; the dates of these changes are
uncertain. With the decrease of the Christian element the
suffragan has become a simple exarchate. To-day there are no
more than 400 Greeks among the 2000 inhabitants of Rizeh, as the
Turks call the town. It is the capital of the Sanjak of Lazistan
in the Vilayet of Trebizond, and exports oranges and lemons. Le
Quien (Oriens christianus, I, 517), mentions three bishops;
Nectarius, present at the Council of Nice, 787; John, at the
Council of Constantinople, 879, and Joachim (metropolitan) in
1565.
SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman Geogr., s. v.; MUeLLER, Notes on
Ptolemy, ed. DIDOT, I, 868.
S. PETRIDES.
Giacomo Rho
Giacomo Rho
Missionary, born at Milan, 1593; died at Peking 27 April, 1638.
He was the son of a noble and learned jurist, and at the age of
twenty entered the Society of Jesus. While poor success attended
his early studies, he was later very proficient in mathematics.
After his ordination at Rome by Cardinal Bellarmine, he sailed
in 1617 for the Far East with forty-four companions. After a
brief stay at Goa he proceeded to Macao where, during the siege
of that city by the Dutch, he taught the inhabitants the use of
artillery and thus brought about its deliverance. This service
opened China to him. He rapidly acquired the knowledge of the
native language and was summoned in 1631 by the emperor to
Peking for the reform of the Chinese calendar. With Father
Schall he worked to the end of his life at this difficult task.
When he died, amidst circumstances exceptionally favourable to
the Catholic mission, numerous Chinese officials attended his
funeral. He left works relative to the correction of the Chinese
calendar, to astronomical and theological questions.
DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Biblioth. de la Comp. de Jesus, VI (9
vols., Brussels and Paris, 1890-1900), 1709-11; HUC,
Christianity in China, Tartary and Thibet, II (tr. New York,
1884), 265-66.
N. A. WEBER.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island
The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, one of the
thirteen original colonies, is in extent of territory (land
area, 1054 square miles), the smallest state in the American
union. It includes the Island of Rhode Island, Block Island, and
the lands adjacent to Narragansett Bay, bounded on the north and
east by Massachusetts, on the south by the Atlantic Ocean, and
on the west by Connecticut.
The population, according to the United States Census of 1910,
numbers 542,674. Providence, the capital, situated at head of
Narragansett Bay, and having a population of 224,326, is the
industrial centre of an extremely wealthy and densely populated
district.
Rhode Island has long since ranked as chiefly a manufacturing
state, although the agricultural interest in certain sections
are still considerable. The agriculture in Rhode Island has not
kept pace with manufacturers is illustrated by instances of
rural population. Two country towns have fewer inhabitants than
in 1748; two others, but a few more than at that date; one town,
less than in 1782; two, less than in 1790, and another, less
than in 1830. Coal exists and has been mined, but it is of
graphitic nature. Granite of high grade is extensively quarried.
The value of stone quarried in 1902 was $734,623; the value of
all other minerals produced, $39,998. The power supplied by the
rivers gave early impetus to manufacturing are general,
including cotton, woolen, and rubber goods, jewelry, silverware,
machinery and tools. In 1905 there were 1617 manufacturing
establishments with a total capitalization of $215,901,375;
employing 97,318 workers with a payroll of $43,112,637, and an
output of the value of $202,109,583. The total assets of banks
and trust companies in June, 1909, were $252,612,122. The bonded
State debt,1 Jan., 1910, was $4,800,000 with a sinking fund of
$654,999. The direct foreign commerce is small, imports in 1908
being $1,499,116 and exports $21,281. The population of Rhode
Island in 1708 was 7181. In 1774 it had increased to 59,707,
subsequently decreasing until in 1782 it was 52,391. Thereafter
until 1840 the average annual increase was 973; and from 1840 to
1860, 3289.
During the latter period and for several years afterward came a
heavy immigration from Ireland, followed by a large influx from
Canada. For the last twenty-five years, the increase from
European countries, especially Italy, has been great. According
to the State census of 1095, the number of foreign-born in Rhode
Island is as follows; born in Canada, 38,500; in Ireland,
32,629; In England, 24,431; In Italy, 18,014; In Sweden, 7201;
In Scotland, 5649; in Portugal, 5293; In Russia, 4505; in
Germany, 4463; in Poland, 4104. This classification does not
distinguish the Jews, who are rapidly increasing, and who in
1905 numbered 14,570.
HISTORY
A. Political
It is probable that Verrazano, sailing under the French flag,
visited rhode Island waters in 1524. A dutch navigator, Adrian
Block, in 1614 explored Narragansett Bay and gave to Block
Island the name it bears. The sentence of banishment of Roger
Williams from Plymouth Colony was passed in 1635, and in the
following year he settled on the site of Providence, acquiring
land by purchase from the Indians. One cause of Williams's
banishment was his protest against the interference of civil
authorities in religious matters. In November, 1637, William
Coddington was notified to eave Massachusetts. With the help f
of Williams, he settled on the site of Portsmouth, in the
northerly part of the island of Rhode Island, which was then
call Aquidneck. Disagreements arising at Portsmouth, Coddington,
with a minority of his townsmen, in 1639 moved southward on the
island and began the settlement of New port. Samuel Gorton,
another refugee from Massachusetts, in 1638 came first to
Portsmouth, and later to Providence, creating discord at both
places by denying all power in the magistrates. Gorton finally,
in 1643, purchased from the Indians a tract of land in what is
now the town of Warwick, and settled there. The four towns,
Providence, Warwick, Portsmouth, and Newport, lying in a broken
line about thirty miles in length, for many years constituted
the municipal divisions of the colony. In 1644 Roger Williams
secured from the English Parliament the first charter, which was
accepted by an assembly of delegates from the four towns; and a
bill of rights, and a brief code of laws, declaring the
government to be "held by the common consent of all the free
inhabitants", were enacted thereunder. In 1663 was granted the
charter of Charles II, the most liberal of all the colonial
charters. It ordained that no person should be in any way
molested on account of religion; and created the General
Assembly, with power to enact all laws necessary for the
government of the colony, such laws being not repugnant to but
agreeable as near as might be to the laws of England,
"considering the nature and constitution of the place and people
there"
The separate existence of the little colony was long precarious.
Coddington in 1651 secured for himself a commission as governor
of the islands of Rhode Island and Conanicut, but his authority
was vigorously assailed, and his commission finally revoked. The
Puritans in Massachusetts were no friends of the people of Rhode
Island, and portions of the meagre territory were claimed by
Massachusetts and Connecticut. Rhode Island, like the other
colonies was threatened both in England and in America by those
who favoured direct control by the English Government. Under the
regime of Andros, Colonial Governor at Boston, the charter
government was suspended for two years; and had the
recommendations of the English commissioner, Lord Bellemont,
been adopted, the charter government would have been abolished.
In 1710 the colony first issued "bills of credit", paper money,
which continued increasing in volume and with great depreciation
in value, until after the close of the Revolution, causing and
inciting bitter partisan and sectional strife, and at times
leading to the verge of civil war. The advocates of this
currency defended it on the ground of necessity, lack of specie,
and the demand for some medium to pay the expenses os successive
wars. In 1787 the State owed -L-150,047, English money, on
interest-bearing notes, which in 1789 the Assembly voted to
retire by paying them in paper money then passing at the ratio
of twelve to one. By the early part of the eighteenth century
the people were extensively engaged in ship-building, and it is
said that in the wars in America between Great Britain and
France, Rhode Island fitted out more ships for service than any
other colony.
The extraordinary measure of self-government granted to the
colonists by the charter fostered in them a spirit of loyalty
toward the mother country, substantially and energetically
manifested on every occasion; but which, nevertheless, when the
danger from the foreign foe was no longer imminent, was
supplanted by a feeling of jealous apprehension of the
encroachments on that the colonist s had now learned to regard
as their natural rights. Rhode Island heartily joined the other
colonies in making the Revolution her cause. In 1768 the
Assembly ratified the Massachusetts remonstrance against the
British principle of taxation, in spite of Lord Hillsborough's
advice to treat it with "the contempt it deserves". The first
overt act of the Revolution, the scuttling of the revenue sloop
"Liberty", took place in Newport harbour, 19 July, 1769;
followed three years later by the burning of the British ship of
war "Gaspee" at Providence. A strong loyalist party in the
colony for social and commercial reasons was anxious to avoid an
open breach with the mother country, but the enthusiasm with
which the news of Lexington was received showed that the
majority of the people welcomed the impending struggle. on 4
May, 1776, the Rhode Island Assembly by formal act renounced its
allegiance to Great Britain, and in the following July voted its
approval of the Declaration of Independence. The colony bore its
burden, too, of the actual conflict. From 1776 until 1779, the
British occupied Newport as their headquarters, ruining the
commerce of the town and wasting the neighbouring country. The
evident strategic importance of the possession of Newport by the
British, and the possibility of the place's becoming the centre
of a protracted and disastrous war, created great alarm not only
in the colony but throughout New England. Two attempts were made
to dislodge the enemy, the second with the co-operation of the
French fleet, but both failed. The levies of men and money were
promptly met by the people of the colony in spite of the
widespread privation and actual suffering. At last the British
headquarters were shifted to the south, and the French allies
Newport until the end of the war.
The same consideration, the instinct for local self-government,
which prompted Rhode Island to resist the mother country, made
her slow to join with the other colonies in establishing a
strong centralized government. "We have not seen our way clear
to do it consistent with our idea of the principles upon which
we are all embarked together", wrote the Assemble to the
President of Congress. The proposed federal organization seemed
scarcely less objectionable than the former British rule. Rhode
Island took no part in the Convention of 1787, and long refused
even to submit the question of the adoption of the Constitution
to a state convention. Eight times the motion to submit was lost
in the Assemble, and it was only when it became evident that the
other states did not regard Rhode Island's condition single
independence as an "eligible" one, and where quite ready to act
in support of their opinion even to the extent of parcelling her
territory among themselves, that the Constitution was submitted
to a convention and adopted by a majority of two votes, 29 May,
1790. Admitted to the Union, Rhode Island did not follow the
example of most of the other states in framing a constitution
adapted to the new national life, but continued under the old
charter. This fact underlies here political history for the next
fifty years. The charter of Charles II, though suitable to its
time, was bound to become oppressive. First, it fixed the
representation of the several towns without providing for a
readjustment to accord with the relative changes therein. Hence,
the natural and social forces, necessarily operating in the
course of two hundred years to enlarge some communities and to
reduce others, failed to find a corresponding political
expression. Again, the charter had conferred the franchise upon
the "freemen" of the towns, leaving to the Assemble the task of
defining the term. From early colonial days the qualification
had fluctuated until in 1798 it was fixed at the ownership of
real estate to the value of $134, or of $7 annual rental (the
eldest sons of freeholders being also eligible). Agitation for a
constitution began as soon as Rhode Island had entered the
Union, and continued for many years with little result. It came
to a head ultimately in 1841 in the Dorr Rebellion, the name
given to that movement whereby a large part in the state, under
the leadership of Thomas W. Dorr of Providence, proceeded to
frame a constitution, independently of the existing government
and to elect officers thereunder. The movement was readily put
down by the authorities after some display of force, and Dorr
was obliged to flee the state. Returning later, he was indicted
for treason, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
He was pardoned and set at liberty within a year. His work was
not a failure, however, for in 1842 a constitution was adopted
incorporating his proposed reforms. A personal property
qualification was instituted, practically equivalent to the real
estate qualification; and neither was required, except in voting
upon an proposition to impose a tax or to expend money, or for
the election of the City Council of Providence. The personal
property qualification was not available, to foreign-born
citizens, and this discrimination persisted until 1888, when it
was abolished by constitutional amendment. Each town and city
was entitled to one member in the Senate; and the membership of
the Lower House, limited to seventy-two, was apportioned among
the towns and cities on the basis of population, with the
proviso that now town or city should have more than one-sixth of
the total membership. In 1909, an amendment was adopted
increasing the membership of the Lower House to one hundred,
apportioned as before among the towns and cities on the basis of
population, with the proviso that no town or city should have
more than one-fourth of the total membership. It is significant
that under this amendment the City of Providence has twenty-five
representatives whereas its population warrants forty-one. In
the same year, the veto power was for the first time bestowed
upon the governor. Notwithstanding these approaches toward a
republican form of government, there is a strong demand for a
thorough revision of the Constitution. According to an opinion
of the Supreme Court a constitutional convention is out of the
question, inasmuch as the Constitution itself contains no
provision therefor (In re The Constitutional Convention, IIV R.
I., 469), and the only hope of reform seems to be in the slow
and difficult process of amendment.
B. Religious
The earliest settlers in this state were criticized by their
enemies for lack of religion. Cotton Mather described them as a
"colluvies" of everything but Roman Catholics and real
Christians. In Providence Roger Williams was made pastor of the
first church, the beginning of the present First Baptist Church.
In 1739 there were thirty-three churches in the colony; twelve
Baptist, ten Quaker, six Congregational or Presbyterian, and
five Episcopalian. It is said that in 1680 there was not one
Catholic in the colony, and for a long period their number must
have been small. In 1828 there were probably less than 1000
Catholics in the state. In that year Bishop Fenwick of Boston
assigned Rev. Robert Woodley to a "parish" which included all of
Rhode Island and territory to the east in Massachusetts. A
church was built in Pawtucket in 1829. Father Woodley in 1828
acquired in Newport a lot and building which was used for a
church and school. In 1830 Rev. John Corry was assigned to
Taunton and Providence, and built a church in Taunton in that
year. The first Catholic church in Providence was built in 1837
on the site of the present cathedral. At that time Father Corry
was placed in charge of Providence alone. From 1844 to 1846 the
mission of Rev. James Fitton included Woonsocket, Pawtucket,
Crompton and Newport, a series of districts extending the length
of the state. In 1846, Newport was made a parish by itself.
Woonsocket received a pastor at about the same time; Pawtucket
in 1847; Warren in 1851; Pascoag in 1851; East Greenwich in
1853; Georgiaville in 1855. These parishes were not confined to
the limits of the towns or villages named, but included the
surrounding territory. In 1844 the Diocese of Hartford was
created, including Rhode Island and Connecticut, with the
episcopal residence at Providence. At this time there were only
six priests in the two states. In 1872 the diocese of Hartford
was divided and the Diocese of Providence created, including all
Rhode Island, and in Massachusetts, the counties of Bristol,
Barnstable, Dukes and Nantucket, also the towns of Mattapoisset,
Marion, and Wareham in the County of Plymouth. In 1904 the
Diocese of Fall River was created, leaving the Diocese of
Providence coextensive with the state. After 1840, and
especially following the famine in Ireland, the Irish increased
with great rapidity and long formed the bulk of the Catholic
population. The growth of cotton manufactures after the Civil
War drew great numbers of Canadian Catholics. In more recent
years Italians have settled in Rhode Island in great numbers,
and many Polish Catholics. Included in the Catholic population
are approximately 65,000 Canadians and French, 40,000 Italians,
10,000 Portuguese,8000 Poles, and 1000 Armenians and Syrians.
According to a special government report on the census of
religious bodies of the United States, 76.5 per cent, of the
population of the City of Providence are Catholics. There are
199 priests in the diocese, including about 47 Canadian and
French priests, 8 Italian, and 5 Polish priests. Thirty parishes
support parochial schools. Under Catholic auspices are two
orphan asylums, one infant asylum, two hospitals, one home for
the aged poor, one industrial school, one house for working
boys, and two houses for working girls.
The first Catholic governor of the State was James H. Higgins, a
Democrat, who was elected for two terms, 1907, 1908. He was
succeeded by Aram J. Pothier, A Catholic, and a Republican.
The State census of 1905 gives the following statistics of
religious denominations:
+ Catholic: 200,00 members (76 churches)
+ Protestant Episcopal: 15,441 members (68 churches)
+ Baptist: 14,761 members (75 churches)
+ Methodist Episcopal: 5,725 members (45 churches)
+ Congregationalist: 9,738 members (42 churches)
+ Lutheran: 2,217 members (12 churches)
+ Free Baptist: 3,306 members (30 churches)
+ Presbyterian: 993 members (4 churches)
+ Universalist: 1,166 members (9 churches)
+ Unitarian: 1,000 members (4 churches)
+ Seventh Day Baptist: 1,040 members (5 churches)
+ Friends: 915 members (7 churches)
Value of property owned by certain denominations is stated as
follows: Protestant Episcopal, $1,957,518; Congregational,
$1,417,089; Baptist, $1,124,348; Methodist Episcopal, $624,900;
Unitarian $280,000; Universalist, $259,000; Free Baptist,
$242,000.
Education
Provision was made for a public school in New port in 1640.
State supervision of public schools was not inaugurated until
1828. The number of pupils enrolled in public schools in 1907
was 74,065, and the number of teachers employed, 2198. The State
maintains an agricultural college, a normal school, a school for
the deaf, a home and school for dependent children not criminal
or vicious, and makes provision for teaching the blind. Schools
are supported mainly by the towns wherein they are located. The
state appropriates annually $120,000 to be used only for
teachers salaries, and to be divided among the towns and cities
in proportion to school population, but no town may receive its
allotment without appropriating at least an equal amount for the
same purpose. Another appropriation is paid to towns maintaining
graded high schools. This appropriation in 1910 was $26,500. The
total amount expended on public schools in 1907, exclusive of
permanent improvements, was $1,800,325, the number of school
buildings was 528; and the valuation of school property,
$6,550,172. The number of parochial school pupils in 1907 was
16,254; the total attendance of Catholic parochial schools and
academies in 1910 was 17,440. These schools cost about
$1,500,000, and their annual maintenance about $150,000. The
average monthly expense per pupil in the public schools in 1907
was stated as $3.14. Allowing ten months for the school year, on
the basis of that cost, the 16,254 parochial school pupils, if
attending the public school, would have cost the State and towns
$510,375. Providence is the seat of Brown University, a Baptist
institution founded in 1764. The corporation consists of a Board
of Trustees and a Board of Fellow. A majority of the trustees
must be Baptists and the rest of the trustees must be chosen
from three other prescribed Protestant denominations. A majority
of the fellows including the president, must be Baptists; "the
rest indifferently of any or all denominations". It is provided
that the places of professors, tutors and all officers, the
president alone excepted, shall be free and open to all
denominations of Protestants. The total enrollment of the
university for the academic year 1909-10 was 967, including the
graduate department and the Women's College.
Legislation Affecting Religion
In 1657 the Assembly denied the demand of the commissioners of
the United Colonies that Quakers should be banished from Rhode
Island, and later passed a law that military service should not
be exacted from those whose religious belief forbade the bearing
of arms. The Charter of 1663 guaranteed freedom of conscience,
and the colonial laws prohibited compulsory support of any form
of worship. In 1663, Charles II wrote to the Assembly declaring
that all men of civil conversation, obedient to magistrates
though of differing judgments, might be admitted as freemen,
with liberty to choose and be chosen to office, civil and
military. In this communication it was voted that all those who
should take an oath of allegiance to Charles II and were of
competent estate, should be admitted as freemen; but none should
vote or hold office until admitted by vote of the assembly. In
the volume of laws printed in 1719, appeared a provision that
all men professing Christianity, obedient to magistrates, and of
civil conversation, though of differing judgments in religious
matters, Roman Catholics alone excepted should have liberty to
choose and be chosen to offices both civil and military. The
date of the original enactment of this exception is not known.
It was repealed in 1783. The State Constitution of 1842
guarantees freedom of conscience, and provides that no man's
civil capacity shall be increased or diminished on account of
his religious belief.
The Sunday law of Rhode Island, following the original English
statute (Charles II, e. VII, sect. 1) differs from the law of
most other states in that it forbids simply the exercise of
one's ordinary calling upon the Lord's day; excepting of course
works of charity and necessity. Hence a release given on Sunday
has been held good (Allen v. Gardiner, VII, R.I. 22); and
probably any contracts not in pursuance of one's ordinary
calling would be sustained though made on Sunday. A
characteristic exception exists in favour of Jews and
Sabbatarians, who are permitted with certain restrictions, to
pursue their ordinary calling on the first day of the week.
Fishing and fowling, except on one's own property, and all
games, sports, plays, and recreations on Sunday are forbidden.
The penalty for the first violation of the statute is $5, and
$10 for subsequent violations. Service of civil process on
Sunday is void.
Witnesses are sworn with the simple formality of raising the
right hand; or they make affirmation upon peril of the penalty
for perjury. Judges assemblymen, and all State officers, civil
and military, must take an oath of office. The substance of the
oath is to support the Constitution of the United States, and
the Constitution and laws of this State, and faithfully and
impartially to discharge the duties of the office. The judges of
the Supreme and Superior Courts also swear to administer justice
without respect of persons, and to do equal right to the poor
and to the rich. Lawyers, auditors and almost every city and
town official take an oath office. Blasphemy is punished by
imprisonment not exceeding two months or fine not exceeding
$200; profane cursing swearing by fine not exceeding $5. New
State and municipal governments are generally inaugurated with
prayer.
Legal holidays include New Year's Day, Columbus Day, and
Christmas. Good Friday is a Court holiday by rule of Court and a
school holiday in Providence by vote of the school committee.
There is no statute or reported decision regarding evidence of
statements made under the seal of confession. Should a question
arise concerning this, it would have to be decided on precedent
and on grounds of public policy. The sole statutory privilege is
that accorded to communications between husband and wife;
although the common law privilege of offers of compromise and
settlement and of communications between attorney and client are
recognized. Physicians may be compelled to disclose statements
made to them by patients regarding physical condition.
Incorporation and Taxation
In 1869 an act was passed enabling the bishop of the Diocese of
Hartford, with the vicar-general, the pastor and two lay members
of any Catholic congregation in this State, to incorporate, and
to hold the Church property of such congregation, by filing with
the secretary of State an agreement to incorporate. This act was
amended upon the creation of the Diocese of Providence. The
property of all the organized and self-sustaining Catholic
parishes is held by corporations so formed. The system furnishes
a convenient means of continuing the ownership of the property
of the respective parishes. In 1900 the bishop of the Diocese of
Providence and his successors were created a corporation sole
with power to hold property for the religious and charitable
purposes of the Roman Catholic Church. Since 1883 there has
existed an act enabling Episcopalian parishes to incorporate.
Special chatters are freely granted when desired. There is a
general law allowing libraries, lyceums and societies for
religious charitable, literary, scientific, artistic, musical or
social purposes to incorporate by filing an agreement stating
the names of the promoters and the object of the corporation,
and by paying a nominal charge. Such corporations may hold
property up to $100,000 in value.
By general law, buildings for religious worship, and the land on
which they stand, not exceeding one acre, so far as such land
and buildings are occupied and used exclusively for religious or
educational purposes, are exempt from taxation. The exemption
does not apply to pastors' houses. The buildings and personal
property of any corporation used for schools, academies, or
seminaries of learning, and of any incorporated public charity,
and the land, not exceeding one acre, on which such buildings
stand, are exempt. School property is exempt only so far as it
is used exclusively for educational purposes. Property used
exclusively for burial purposes, hospitals, public libraries,
and property used for the aid of the poor, are exempt.
Any church property other than that specified is taxed, unless
it is in a form exempted by national law. Clergymen are exempt
from jury and military duty.
Marriage and Divorce
Marriage between grandparent and grandchild, or uncle and niece,
and between persons more closely related by blood, is void; as
is marriage with a step-parent, with the child or grandchild or
one's husband or wife, with the husband or wife of one's child
or grandchild, and with the parent or grandparent of one's wife
or husband. The statute contains no express requirement
regarding the age of the parties contracting marriage, but it is
a defence to an indictment for bigamy that the prior marriage
was contracted when the man was under fourteen years of age, and
the woman under twelve. Marriages among Jews are valid in law if
they are valid under the Jewish religion. Marriages may be
performed by licensed clergymen and by the judges of the Supreme
and Superior Courts. Before marriage, parties must obtain a
licence by personal application from the town clerk, or city
clerk, or registrar; and a non-resident woman must obtain such
licence at least five days previous to the marriage. The licence
must be presented to the clergyman or judge officiating, who
must make return of the marriage. Two witnesses are required to
the marriage ceremony. Failure to observe the licence
regulations will not invalidate the marriage provided either of
the contracting parties supposes they have been complied with;
but the noncompliance is punished by fine or imprisonment.
Causes for divorce include adultery, extreme cruelty, wilful
desertion for five years, or for a shorter time in the
discretion of the Court, continued drunkenness, excessive use of
opium, morphine, or chloral, neglect of husband to provide
necessaries for this wife, and an other gross misbehaviour and
wickedness repugnant to the marriage covenant. If the parties
have been separated for ten years, the Court may in its
discretion decree a divorce. Under the law of Rhode Island
marriage is regarded as a status, pertaining to the citizen,
which the State may regulate or alter. Hence a Court having
jurisdiction over one of the parties to a marriage as a bona
fide domiciled citizen of the State, may dissolve the marriage
although the other party is beyond the jurisdiction; and such
dissolution will be recognized by other states b virtue of the
comity provision of the Federal Constitution (Ditson vs. Ditson,
IV R.I. 87).
Liquor Laws, Corrections, etc.
A Constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture and sale
of intoxicating liquor was adopted in 1886, and repealed in
1889. At present Rhode Island is a local option state, the
question of licence or no-licence being submitted annually to
the voters of the several cities and towns. The licensing boards
may in their discretion refuse any application. The number of
licences in any town may not exceed the proportion of one
licence to each 500 inhabitants. The owners of the greater part
of the land within two hundred feet of any location may bar its
licence. No licence can be granted for a location within two
hundred feet, measured on the street, of any public or parochial
school. Maximum and minimum licence fees are fixed by statute,
and the exact sum is determined by the licensing boards. For
retail licences the minimum fee is $300, and the maximum, $1000.
In the City of Cranston are located the "State institutions",
so-called, including the State prison, the county jail, the
State workhouse, a reform school for girls, and another for
boys. The probation system is extensively employed, and in the
case of juvenile offenders especially, the State makes every
effort to prevent their becoming hardened criminals. Probation
officers have the power of bail over persons committed to them.
In proper cases, probation officers may provide for the
maintenance of girls and women apart from their families.
Capital punishment does not exist in the State except in cases
where a life convict commits murder.
Wills disposing of personal property may be made by persons
eighteen years of age or over; wills disposing of real estate,
by persons twenty-one years of age or over. Probate clerks are
required to notify corporations and voluntary associations of
all gifts made to them by will. If a gift for charity is made by
will to a corporation and the acceptance thereof would be ultra
vires, the corporation may at once receive the gift, and may
retain it on condition of securing the consent of the
legislature within one year. It has been held that a legacy for
Masses should be paid in full even if the estate were
insufficient to pay general pecuniary legacies in full, on the
ground that the gift for Masses is for services to be rendered
and is not gratuitous, furthermore that a gift for Masses is
legal and is not void as being a superstitious use (Sherman v.
Baker, XX R.I., 446, 613).
Cemeteries are regulated to the extent that town councils may
prevent their location in thickly populated districts, and for
the protection of health may pass ordinances regarding burials
and the use of the grounds. Desecration of graves is punished.
Towns may receive land for burial purposes, and town councils
may hold funds for the perpetual care of burial lots. Cemeteries
are generally owned by corporations specially chartered, by
churches and families.
Field, State of R.I. and Providence Plantations (Boston, 1902);
Arnold, Hist. of R.I. (New York, 1860); Staples, Annals of
Providence (Providence, 1843); Dowling, Hist. of the Catholic
Church in New England (Boston, 1899); R.I. Colonial Records.
ALBERT B. WEST
Alexandre de Rhodes
Alexandre De Rhodes
A missionary and author, born at Avignon, 15 March, 1591; died
at Ispahan, Persia, 5 Nov., 1660. He entered the novitiate of
the Society of Jesus at Rome, 24 April, 1612, with the intention
of devoting his life to the conversion of the infidels. He was
assigned to the missions of the East Indies, and inaugurated his
missionary labours in 1624 with great success in Cochin China.
In 1627 he proceeded to Tongking where, within the space of
three years, he converted 6000 persons, including several
bonzes. When in 1630 persecution forced him to leave the
country, the newly-made converts continued the work of
evangelization. Rhodes was later recalled to Rome where he
obtained permission from his superiors to undertake missionary
work in Persia. Amidst the numerous activities of a missionary
career, he found time for literary productions: "Tunchinensis
historiae libri duo" (Lyons, 1652); "La glorieuse mort d'Andre,
Catechiste . . ." (Paris, 1653); "Catechismus", published in
Latin and in Tongkingese at Rome in 1658.
DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Biblioth. de la Comp. de Jesus, VI (9
vols., Brussels and Paris, 1890-1900), 1718-21; CARAYON, Voyages
et Missions du P. Rhodes (Paris and Le Mans, 1854).
N. A. WEBER.
Rhodes
Rhodes
(RHODUS)
A titular metropolitan of the Cyclades (q. v.). It is an island
opposite to Lycia and Caria, from which it is separated by a
narrow arm of the sea. It has an area of about 564 sq. miles, is
well watered by many streams and the river Candura, and is very
rich in fruits of all kinds. The climate is so genial that the
sun shines ever there, as recorded in a proverb already known to
Pliny (Hist. natur., II, 62). The island, inhabited first by the
Carians and then by the Phoenicians (about 1300 b.c.) who
settled several colonies there, was occupied about 800 b.c. by
the Dorian Greeks. In 408 b.c. the inhabitants of the three
chief towns, Lindus, Ialysus, and Camirus founded the city of
Rhodes, from which the island took its name. This town, built on
the side of a hill, had a very fine port. On the breakwater,
which separated the interior from the exterior port, was the
famous bronze statue, the Colossus of Rhodes, 105 feet high,
which cost 300 talents. Constructed (280) from the machines of
war which Demetrius Poliorcetes had to abandon after his defeat
before the town, it was thrown down by an earthquake in 203
B.C.; its ruins were sold in the seventh century by Caliph
Moaviah to a Jew from Emesus, who loaded them on 900 camels.
After the death of Alexander the Great and the expulsion of the
Macedonian garrison (323 b.c.) the island, owing to its navy
manned by the best mariners in the world, became the rival of
Carthage and Alexandria. Allied with the Romans, and more or
less under their protectorate, Rhodes became a centre of art and
science; its school of rhetoric was frequented by many Romans,
including Cato, Cicero, Caesar, and Pompey. Ravaged by Cassius
in 43 b.c. it remained nominally independent till a.d. 44, when
it was incorporated with the Roman Empire by Claudius, becoming
under Diocletian the capital of the Isles or of the Cyclades,
which it long remained.
The First Book of Machabees (xv, 23) records that Rome sent the
Rhodians a decree in favour of the Jews. St. Paul stopped there
on his way from Miletus to Jerusalem (Acts, xxi, 1); he may even
have made converts there. In three other passages of Holy Writ
(Gen., x, 4; I Par., i, 7; Ezech., xxvii, 15) the Septuagint
renders by Rhodians what the Hebrew and the Vulgate rightly call
Dodanim and Dedan. If we except some ancient inscriptions
supposed to be Christian, there is no trace of Christianity
until the third century, when Bishop Euphranon is said to have
opposed the Encratites. Euphrosynus assisted at the Council of
Nicaea (325). As the religious metropolitan of the Cyclades,
Rhodes had eleven suffragan sees towards the middle of the
seventh century (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte. . . . Texte der Notitiae
episcopatuum", 542); at the beginning of the tenth century, it
had only ten (op. cit., 558); at the close of the fifteenth,
only one, Lerne (op. cit., 635), which has since disappeared.
Rhodes is still a Greek metropolitan depending on the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. On 15 August, 1310, under the
leadership of Grand Master Foulques de Villaret, the Knights of
St. John captured the island in spite of the Greek emperor,
Andronicus II, and for more than two centuries, thanks to their
fleet, were a solid bulwark between Christendom and Islam. In
1480 Rhodes, under the orders of Pierre d'Aubusson, underwent a
memorable siege by the lieutenants of Mahomet II; on 24 October,
1522, Villiers de l'Isle Adam had to make an honorable
capitulation to Solyman II and deliver the island definitively
to the Turks. From 1328 to 1546 Rhodes was a Latin metropolitan,
having for suffragans the sees of Melos, Nicaria, Carpathos,
Chios, Tinos, and Mycone; the list of its bishops is to be found
in Le Quien (Oriens christ., III, 1049) and Eubel (Hierarchia
catholica medii aevi, I, 205; II, 148; III, 188). The most
distinguished bishop is Andreas Colossensis (the archdiocese was
called Rhodes or Colossi) who, in 1416 at Constance and 1439 at
Florence, defended the rights of the Roman Church against the
Greeks, and especially against Marcus Eugenicus. After the death
of Marco Cattaneo, the last residential archbishop, Rhodes
became a mere titular bishopric, while Naxos inherited its
metropolitan rights. On 3 March, 1797 it became again a titular
archbishopric but the title was thenceforth attached to the See
of Malta. Its suffragans are Carpathos, Leros, Melos, Samos, and
Tenedos. By a decree of the Congregation of the Propaganda, 14
August, 1897, a prefecture Apostolic, entrusted to the
Franciscans, was established in the Island of Rhodes; it has in
addition jurisdiction over a score of neighbouring islands, of
which the principal are Carpathos, Leros, and Calymnos. There
are in all 320 Catholics, while the island, the capital of the
vilayet of the archipelago, contains 30,000 inhabitants. The
Franciscans have three priests; the Brothers of the Christian
Schools have established there a scholasticate for the Orient as
well as a school; the Franciscan Sisters of Gemona have a girls'
school. The most striking feature of the city, in addition to a
series of medieval towers and fortifications, is the Street of
the Knights, which still preserves their blason (Order of St.
John) and the date of the erection of each house or palace;
several of the mosques are former churches.
MEURSIUS, Creta, Cyprus, Rhodus (Amsterdam, 1675): CORONELLI,
Isola di Rodi geographica, storica (Venice, 1702); LE QUIEN,
Oriens christ., I, 923 30; PAULSEN, Commentatio exhibens Rhodi
descriptionem macedonica oetate (Goettingsn, 1818); MENGE, Ueber
die Vorgesch. der Insel Rhodus (Cologne, 1827): ROTTIERS,
Description des monuments de Rhodes (Brussels, 1828); ROSS,
Reisen auf den griech. Inseln, III, 70-113; IDEM, Reisen nach
Kos, Halikarnassos, Rhodos (Stuttgart, 1840); BERG, Die Insel
Rhodos (Brunswick, 1860); SCHNEIDERWIRTH, Gesch. der Insel
Rhodos (Heiligenstadt. 1868); GUERIN, L'ile de Rhodes (Paris,
1880); BILLIOTI AND COTTERET, L'ile de Rhodes (Paris, 1891);
BECKER, De Rhodiorum primordiis (Leipzig, 1882); TORR, Rhodes in
Ancient Times (Cambridge, 1885); IDEM, Rhodes in Modern Times
(Cambridge, 1887); SCHUMACHER, De Republica Rhodiorum
commentatio (Heidelberg, 1886); VON GELDER, Gesch. der alten
Rhodier (La Haye, 1900); SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr.,
s. v.; FILLION in VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. v.; Missiones
catholicae (Rome, 1907).
S. VAILHE
Rhodesia
Rhodesia
A British possession in South Africa, bounded on the north and
north-west by the Congo Free State and German East Africa; on
the east by German East Africa, Nyassaland, and Portuguese East
Africa; on the south by the Transvaal and Bechuanaland; on the
west by Bechuanaland and Portuguese West Africa. Cecil John
Rhodes, to whom the colony owes its name, desired to promote the
expansion of the British Empire in South Africa. The Dutch South
African Republic and Germany were contemplating annexations in
the neighbourhood of the Zambesi River. To thwart these enemies
of unity without delay and without the aid of the British
Parliament was the task to which Mr. Rhodes and his colleagues
set themselves. Early in 1888 Lobengula, King of Matabeleland,
entered into a treaty with Great Britain and on 30 October of
the same year he granted to Rhodes's agents "the complete and
exclusive charge over all metals and minerals" in his dominions.
On 28 October, 1889, the British South Africa Company was formed
under a royal charter. The company, on Lobengula's advice, first
decided to open up Mashonaland, which lies north and west of
Matabeleland and south of the Zambesi. In September, 1890, an
expeditionary column occupied that country and, in the next four
years, much was done to develop its resources. In 1893 the
company, who questioned the right of the Matabele to make annual
raids among their neighbours the Mashonas, came to blows with
King Lobengula. Five weeks of active operations and the death of
the king, probably by self-administered poison, brought the
whole of Southern Rhodesia under the absolute control of the
company.
After the war, the settlement and opening up of the country was
carried on under the direction of Mr. Rhodes who, on the ruins
of Lobengula's royal kraal at Bulawayo, built Government House,
and in the vicinity, laid out the streets and avenues of what
was intended soon to become a great city. At one time Bulawayo
had a population of some 7000 white inhabitants and seemed to be
fulfilling the dreams of its founder when its progress and that
of the whole country was cut short by the cattle pest, the
native rebellion of 1896, and by years of stagnation and
inactivity consequent upon the Boer War. Its white population
(1911) is 5200. Besides Southern Rhodesia the chartered company
own the extensive teritories of North-western and North-eastern
Rhodesia which lie north of the Zambesi and which, with the more
populous southern province, cover an area of some 450,000 square
miles and form a country larger than France, Germany, and the
Low Countries combined. The black population is less than
1,500,000, while the whites hardly exceed 16,000. All the native
tribes of Rhodesia belong to the great Bantu family of the negro
race. Before the arrival of the pioneer columns the dominant
race south of the Zambesi were the Matabele, an off-shoot of the
Zulus, who conquered the country north of the Limpopo River in
the middle of the last century. They formed a military caste
which lived by war and periodical raids upon their weaker
neighbours. The destruction of this military despotism was a
necessary step to the evangelizing of the country. Before the
arrival of the Matabele warriors the principal inhabitants of
Southern Rhodesia were the Makaranga whose ancestors had formed
the once powerful empire of Monomotapa. North-western Rhodesia
or Barotseland is ruled partly by an administrator residing at
Livingstone, near the Victoria Falls of the Zambesi and partly
by its native King Lewanika, the chief of the Barotse, who has
been heavily subsidised by the company. The predominant people
in North-eastern Rhodesia are the Awemba and the Angoni whose
raiding propensities and cooeperation with the Arab slave
drivers caused much trouble and expense until their definitive
annexation by the company in 1894.
The earliest attempt to evangelize Matabeleland was made in 1879
when three Jesuit Fathers, travelling by ox-wagon, accomplished
the journey of some twelve hundred miles between Grahamstown and
Bulawayo. They were hospitably received by King Lobengula who
had been assured by some resident traders that the missionaries
had come for his people's good. He granted them a free passage
through his dominions and allowed them to train his subjects in
habits of industry but not to preach the Gospel of Christ which,
as he well knew, would lead to drastic changes, not only in the
domestic life of his people, but in his whole system of
government. For some fourteen years the missionaries held their
ground awaiting events and it was only through the conquest of
the country by the company that free missionary work was
rendered possible. It was during this period that Baron von
Hubner, who was not without personal experience of South Africa,
declared that he would never contribute a penny to the Zambesi
Mission, since he thought it contrary to his duty to foster an
enterprise doomed to failure and disaster. Events seemed to
justify his prognostications, for the mission, owing to fever
and the hardships of travel, seemed to be losing more workers
than it made converts. In 1893, however, the power of Lobengula
was broken and mission stations began to grow up in the
neighbourhood of Salisbury, the capital, and of Bulawayo. In
Matabeleland there are two mission stations, one at Bulawayo and
the second at Empandeni, some sixty miles away. This last
station owns a property of about one hundred square miles most
of which formed the original grant of Lobengula and the title to
which was confirmed by the company. The principal station among
the Mashonas or Makaranga is Chishawasha, fourteen miles from
Salisbury (founded in 1892). There are other stations of more
recent date at Salisbury, Driefontein, Hama's Kraal, and Mzondo,
near Victoria, all under the charge of the Jesuit Fathers. The
Missionaries of Marianhill, recently separated from the
Trappists, have two missions in Mashonaland at Macheke and St.
Trias Hill. The Makaranga who are thus being evangelized from
seven mission stations are the descendants of the predominant
tribe who received the faith from the Ven. Father Gonc,alo de
Silveira in 1561. Among the Batongas, who owe a somewhat
doubtful allegiance to King Lewanika in North-western Rhodesia,
there are two Jesuit mission stations on the Chikuni and
Nguerere Rivers. These missions are under the jurisdiction of
the Jesuit Prefect Apostolic of the Zambesi, resident in
Bulawayo. There are 35 priests, 30 lay brothers, and 83 nuns in
charge of the missions. The Catholic native population is about
3000. For the missions of North-eastern Rhodesia see NYASSA,
VICARIATE, APOSTOLIC OF. The land of the mission stations in
Rhodesia is usually a grant from the Government made on
condition of doing missionary work and is therefore inalienable
without a special order in Council. Native schools, in some
cases, are in receipt of a small grant from the Government. The
Jesuit Fathers have one school for white boys (120) at Bulawayo,
while the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Dominic have three:
at Bulawayo (210), Salisbury (130) and Gwelo (40). These schools
are undenominational and receive grants from the Government.
Hence Catholics who were first in the field, have a very
considerable share in the education of the country. New
Government schools have been built recently in Salisbury,
Bulawayo, and Gwelo and other places in order to meet the
growing demand for education and they have, so far, succeeded in
filling their school-rooms without taking many pupils from the
schools managed by Catholics.
The chief source of information about the Zambesi Mission is the
Zambesi Mission Record, issued quarterly (Roehampton, England);
HENSMAN, A History of Rhodesia (London, 1900); HONE, Southern
Rhodesia (London, 1909); HALL, Prehistoric Rhodesia (London,
1909); MICHELL, Life of C. J. Rhodes (2 vols., London, 1910).
JAMES KENDAL.
Rhodiopolis
Rhodiopolis
A titular see of Lycia, suffragan of Myra, called Rhodia by
Ptolemy (V, 3) and Stephanus Byzantius; Rhodiapolis on its coins
and inscriptions; Rhodiopolis by Pliny (V, 28), who locates it
in the mountains to the north of Corydalla. Its history is
unknown. Its ruins may be seen on a hill in the heart of a
forest at Eski Hissar, vilayet of Koniah. They consist of the
remains of an aqueduct, a small theatre, a temple of Escalapius,
sarcophagi, and churches. Only one bishop is known, Nicholas,
present in 518 at a Council of Constantinople. The "Notitiae
episcopatuum" continue to mention the see as late as the twelfth
or thirteenth century.
LE QUIEN, Oriens christianus, I, 991; SPRATT AND FORBES, Travels
in Lycia, I, 166, 181; SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman geogr.,
s. v.
S. PETRIDES
Rhodo
Rhodo
A Christian writer who flourished in the time of Commodus
(180-92); he was a native of Asia who came to Rome where he was
a pupil of Tatian's. He wrote several books, two of which are
mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, xiii), viz., a treatise
on "The Six Days of Creation" and a work against the Marcionites
in which he dwelled upon the various opinions which divided
them. Eusebius, upon whom we depend exclusively for our
knowledge of Rhodo, quotes some passages from the latter work,
in one of which an account is given of the Marcionite Apelles.
St. Jerome (De vir. ill.) amplifies Eusebius's account somewhat
by making Rhodo the author of a work against the Cataphrygians
-- probably he had in mind an anonymous work quoted by Eusebius
a little later (op. cit., V, xvi).
HARNACK, Altchrist Lit., p . 599; BARDENHEWER, Patrology (tr.
SHAHAN, St. Louis, 1908), 117.
F.J. BACCHUS
Rhosus
Rhosus
A titular see in Cilicia Secunda, suffragan to Anazarba. Rhosus
or Rhossus was a seaport situated on the Gulf of Issus, now
Alexandretta, southwest of Alexandria (Iskenderoun or
Alexandretta). It is mentioned by Strabo (XIV, 5; XVI, 2),
Ptolemy (V, 14), Pliny (V, xviii, 2), who place it in Syria, and
by Stephanus Byzantius; later by Hierocles (Synecd. 705, 7), and
George of Cyprus (Descriptio orbis romani, 827), who locate it
in Cilicia Secunda. Towards 200, Serapion of Antioch composed a
treatise on the Gospel of Peter for the faithful of Rhosus who
had become heterodox on account of that book (Eusebius, "Hist.
eccl.", VI, xii, 2). Theodoret (Philoth. Hist., X, XI), who
places it in Cilicia, relates the history of the hermit
Theodosius of Antioch, founder of a monastery in the mountain
near Rhosus, who was forced by the inroads of barbarians to
retire to Antioch, where he died and was succeeded by his
disciple Romanus, a native of Rhosus; these two religious are
honoured by the Greek Church on 5 and 9 February. Six bishops of
Rhosus are known (Le Quien, "Or. Christ.", II, 905): Antipatros,
at the Council of Antioch, 363; Porphyrius, a correspondent of
St. John Chrysostom; Julian, at the Council of Chalcedon, 451; a
little later a bishop (name unknown), who separated from his
metropolitan to approve of the reconciliation effected between
John of Antioch and St. Cyril; Antoninus, at the Council of
Mopsuestra, 550; Theodore, about 600. The see is mentioned among
the suffragans of Anazarba in "Notitiae episcopatuum" of the
Patriarchate of Antioch, of the sixth century (Vailhe in "Echos
d'Orient", X, 145) and one dating from about 840 (Parthey,
"Hieroclis synecd. et notit. gr. episcopat.", not. Ia, 827). In
another of the tenth century Rhosus is included among the exempt
sees (Vailhe, ibid 93 seq.). In the twelfth century the town and
neighbouring fortress fell into the hands of the Armenians; in
1268 this castle was captured from the Templars by Sultan Bibars
(Alishan, "Sissouan", Venice, 1899, 515). Rhosus is near the
village of Arsous in the vilayet of Adana.
S. PETRIDES.
Rhymed Bibles
Rhymed Bibles
The rhymed versions of the Bible are almost entirely collections
of the psalms. The oldest English rhymed psalter is a
pre-Reformation translation of the Vulgate psalms, generally
assigned to the reign of Henry II and still preserved in Corpus
Christi College, Cambridge. The Bodleian Library, Oxford, has
another Catholic rhyming psalter of much the same style,
assigned epigraphically to the time of Edward II. Thomas
Brampton did the Seven Penitential Psalms, from the Vulgate into
rhyming verse in 1414; the Manuscript is in the Cottonian
collection, British Museum. These and other pre-Reformation
rhyming psalters tell a story of popular use of the vernacular
Scripture in England which they ignore who say that the singing
of psalms in English began with the Reformation. Sir Thomas Wyat
(died 1521) is said to have done the whole psalter. We have only
"Certayne Psalmes chosen out of the Psalter of David, commonly
called the VII Penitential Psalmes, Drawen into English metre".
Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey (died 1547), translated Pss. lv,
lxxiii, lxxxviii into English verse. Miles Coverdale (died 1567)
translated several psalms in "Goastly psalmes and spirituall
songs drawen out of the Holy Scripture". The old Version of the
Anglican Church, printed at the end of the Prayer Book (1562)
contains thirty-seven rhyming psalms translated by Thomas
Sternhold, fifty-eight by John Hopkins, twenty-eight by Thomas
Norton, and the remainder by Robert Wisdom (Ps. cxxv), William
Whittingham (Ps. cxix of 700 lines) and others. Sternhold's
psalms had been previously published (1549). Robert Crowley
(1549) did the entire psalter into verse. The Seven Penitential
Psalms were translated by very many; William Hunnis (1583)
entitles his translation, with quaint Elizabethan conceit,
"Seven Sobs of a Sorrowful Soul for Sinne". During the reign of
Edward VI, Sir Thomas Smith translated ninety-two of the psalms
into English verse, while imprisoned in the Tower. A chaplain to
Queen Mary, calling himself the "symple and unlearned Syr
William Forrest, preeiste", did a poetical version of fifty
psalms (1551). Matthew Parker (1557), later Archbishop of
Canterbury, completed a metrical psalter. The Scotch had their
Psalmes buickes from 1564. One of the most renowned of Scotch
versifiers of the Psalms was Robert Pont (1575). Zachary Boyd,
another Scotchman, published the Psalms in verse early in the
seventeenth century. Of English rhyming versifications of the
Psalms, the most charming are those of Sir Philip Sidney (d.
1586) together with his sister, Countess of Pembroke. This
complete psalter was not published till 1823. The rich variety
of the versification is worthy of note; almost all the usual
varieties of lyric metres of that lyric age are called into
requisition and handled with elegance.
The stately and elegant style of Lord Bacon is distinctive of
his poetical paraphrases of several psalms. Richard Verstegan, a
Catholic, published a rhyming version of the Seven Penitential
Psalms (1601). George Sandys (1636) published a volume
containing a metrical version of other parts of the Bible
together with "a Paraphrase upon the Psalmes of David, set to
new Tunes for Private Devotion, and a Thorow Base for Voice and
Instruments"; his work is touching in its simplicity and
unction. The Psalm Books of the various Protestant churches are
mostly rhyming versions and are numerous: New England Psalm Book
(Boston, 1773); Psalm Book of the Reformed Dutch Church in North
America (New York, 1792); The Bay Psalm Book (Cambridge, 1640).
Noteworthy also, among the popular and more recent rhymed
psalters are: Brady and Tate (poet laureate), "A new Version of
the Psalms of David" (Boston, 1762); James Merrick, "The Psalms
in English Verse" (Reading, England, 1765); I. Watts, "The
Psalms of David" (27th ed., Boston, 1771); J. T. Barrett, "A
Course of Psalms" (Lambeth, 1825); Abraham Coles, "A New
Rendering of the Hebrew Psalms into English Verse" (New York,
1885); David S. Wrangham, "Lyra Regis" (Leeds, 1885); Arthur
Trevor Jebb "A Book of Psalms" (London, 1898). Such are the
chief rhyming English psalters. Other parts of Holy Writ done
into rhyming English verse are: Christopher Tye's "The Acts of
the Apostles translated into English Metre" (1553); Zachary
Boyd's "St. Matthew" (early seventeenth cent.); Thomas Prince's
"Canticles, parts of Isaias and Revelations" in New England
Psalm Book (1758); Henry Ainswort, "Solomon's Song of Songs"
(1642); John Mason Good's "Song of Songs" (London, 1803); C. C.
Price's "Acts of the Apostles" (New York, 1845). The French have
had rhyming psalters since the "Sainctes Chansonettes en Rime
Franc,aise" of Clement Marot (1540). Some Italian rhymed
versions of the Bible are: Abbate Francesco Rezzano, "II Libro
di Giobbe" (Nice, 1781); Stefano Egidio Petroni, "Proverbi di
Salomone" (London, 1815); Abbate Pietro Rossi, "Lamentazioni di
Geremia, i Sette Salmi Penitenziali e il Cantico di Mose"
(Nizza, 1781); Evasio Leone, "II Cantico de' Cantici" (Venice,
1793); Francesco Campana, "Libro di Giuditta" (Nizza, 1782).
Bibliotheca Sussexiana, II (London. 1839); WARTON, History of
English Poetry (1774-81); HOLLAND, The Psalmists of Britain
(London, 1843).
WALTER DRUM.
Rhythmical Office
Rhythmical Office
I. DESCRIPTION, DEVELOPMENT, AND DIVISION
By rhythmical office is meant a liturgical horary prayer, the
canonical hours of the priest, or an office of the Breviary, in
which not only the hymns are regulated by a certain rhythm, but
where, with the exception of the psalms and lessons, practically
all the other parts show metre, rhythm, or rhyme; such parts for
instance as the antiphons to each psalm, to the Magnificat,
Invitatorium, and Benedictus, likewise the responses and
versicles to the prayers, and after each of the nine lessons;
quite often also the benedictions before the lessons, and the
antiphons to the minor Horoe (Prime, Terce, Sext, and None).
The old technical term for such an office was Historia, with or
without an additional " rhytmata" or rimata, an expression that
frequently caused misunderstanding on the part of later writers.
The reason for the name lay in the fact that originally the
antiphons or the responses, and sometimes the two together,
served to amplify or comment upon the history of a saint, of
which there was a brief sketch in the readings of the second
nocturn. Gradually this name was transferred to offices in which
no word was said about a "history", and thus we find the
expression "Historia ss. Trinitatis". The structure of the
ordinary office of the Breviary in which antiphons, psalms,
hymns, lessons, and responses followed one another in fixed
order, was the natural form for the rhythmical office. It was
not a question of inventing something new, as with the hymns,
sequences, or other kinds of poetry, but of creating a text in
poetic form in the place of a text in prose form, where the
scheme existed, definitely arranged in all its parts. A
development therefore which could eventually serve as a basis
for the division of the rhythmical offices into distinct classes
is of itself limited to a narrow field, namely the external form
of the parts of the office as they appear in poetic garb. Here
we find in historical order the following characters:
+ (1) a metrical, of hexameters intermixed with prose or rhymed
prose;
+ (2) a rhythmical, in the broadest sense, which will be
explained below;
+ (3) a form embellished by strict rhythm and rhyme.
Consequently one may distinguish three classes of rhythmical
offices:
+ (1) metrical offices, in hexameters or distichs;
+ (2) offices in rhymed prose, i. e., offices with very free and
irregular rhythm, or with dissimilar assonant long lines;
+ (3) rhymed offices with regular rhythm and harmonious artistic
structure.
The second class represents a state of transition, wherefore the
groups may be called those of the first epoch, the groups of the
transition period, and those of the third epoch, in the same way
as with the sequences, although with the latter the
characteristic difference is much more pronounced. If one
desires a general name for all three groups, the expression
"Rhymed Office", as suggested by " Historia rimata"" would be
quite appropriate for the pars major et potior, which includes
the best and most artistic offices; this designation: "
gereimtes Officium" (Reimofficium) has been adopted in Germany
through the "Analecta Hymnica". The term does not give absolute
satisfaction, because the first and oldest offices are without
rhyme, and cannot very well be called rhymed offices. In the
Middle Ages the word "rhythmical" was used as the general term
for any kind of poetry to be distinguished from prose, no matter
whether there was regular rhythm in those poems or not. And for
that reason it is practical to comprise in the name "rhythmical
offices" all those which are other than pure prose, a
designation corresponding to the "Historia rhytmata".
Apart from the predilection of the Middle Ages for the poetic
form, the Vitoe metricoe of the saints were the point of
departure and motive for the rhythmical offices. Those Vitoe
were frequently composed in hexameters or distichs. From them
various couples of hexameters or a distich were taken to be used
as antiphon or response respectively. In case the hexameters of
the Vitoe metricoe did not prove suitable enough, the lacking
parts of the office were supplemented by simple prose or by
means of verses in rhymed prose, i. e., by text lines of
different length in which there was very little of rhythm, but
simply assonance. Such offices are often a motley mixture of
hexameters, rhythmical stanzas, stanzas in pure prose, and again
in rhymed prose. An example of an old metrical office,
intermixed with Prose Responses, is that of St. Lambert (Anal.
Hymn., XXVII, no. 79), where all the antiphons are borrowed from
that saint's Vitoe metricoe, presumably the work of Hucbald of
St. Amand; the office itself was composed by Bishop Stephen of
Liege about the end of the ninth century:
Antiphona I:
Orbita solaris praesentia gaudia confert Praesulis eximii
Lantberti gesta revolvens.
Antiphona II:
Hic fuit ad tempus Hildrici regis in aula,
Dilectus cunctis et vocis famine dulcis.
A mixing of hexameters, of rhythmical stanzas, and of stanzas
formed by unequal lines in rhymed prose is shown in the old
Office of Rictrudis, composed by Hucbald about 907 (Anal. Hymn.,
XIII, no. 87). By the side of regular hexameters, as in the
Invitatorium:
Rictrudis sponso sit laus et gloria, Christo,
Pro cuius merito iubilemus ei vigilando.
we find rhythmical stanzas, like the first antiphon to Lauds:
Beata Dei famula
Rictrudis, adhuc posita
In terris, mente devota
Christo haerebat in aehra;
or stanzas in very free rhythm, as e. g., the second response to
the first nocturn:
Haec femina laudabilis
Meritisque honorabilis
Rictrudis egregia
Divina providentia
Pervenit in Galliam,
Praeclaris orta natalibus,
Honestis alta et instituta moribus.
From the metrical offices, from the pure as well as from those
mixed with rhymed prose, the transition was soon made to such as
consisted of rhymed prose merely. An example of this kind is in
the Offices of Ulrich, composed by Abbot Berno of Reichenau (d.
1048); the antiphon to the Magnificat of the first Vespers
begins thus:
Venerandi patris Wodalrici sollemnia
Magnae jucunditatis repraesentant gaudia,
Quae merito cleri suscipiuntur voto
Ac populi celebrantur tripudio.
Laetetur tellus tali compta praesule,
Exsultet polus tanto ditatus compare;
Solus daemon ingemat, qui ad eius sepulcrum
Suum assidue perdit dominium . . . etc.
Much more perfectly developed on the other hand, is the rhythm
in the Office which Leo IX composed in honour of Gregory the
Great (Anal. Hymn., V, no. 64). This office, the work of a pope,
appeared in the eleventh century in the Roman breviaries, and
soon enjoyed widespread circulation; all its verses are iambic
dimeters, but the rhythm does not as yet coincide with the
natural accent of the word, and many a verse has a syllable in
excess or a syllable wanting. For example, the first antiphon of
the first nocturn:
Gregorius ortus Romae
E senatorum sanguine
Fulsit mundo velut gemma
Auro superaddita,
Dum praeclarior praeclaris
Hic accessit atavis.
This author does not yet make use of pure rhyme, but only of
assonance, the precursor of rhyme. Hence we have before us an
example of transition from offices of the first epoch to those
of the second. With these latter the highest development of the
rhythmical office is reached. It is marvellous how in many
offices of this artistic period, in spite of all symmetry in
rhythm and rhyme, the greatest variety exists in the structure
of the stanzas, how a smooth and refined language matches the
rich contents full of deep ideas, and how the individual parts
are joined together in a complete and most striking picture of
the saint or of the mystery to be celebrated. A prominent
example is the Office of the Trinity by Archbishop Pecham of
Canterbury.
The first Vespers begins with the antiphons:
1. Sedenti super solium
Congratulans trishagium
Seraphici clamoris
Cum patre laudat filium
Indifferens principium
Reciproci amoris.
2. Sequamur per suspirium,
Quod geritur et gaudium
In sanctis caeli choris;
Levemus cordis studium
In trinum lucis radium
Splendoris et amoris.
It is interesting to compare with the preceding the antiphons to
the first nocturn, which have quite a different structure; the
third of them exhibits the profound thought:
Leventur cordis ostia:
Memoria Giguenti
Nato intelligentia,
Voluntas Procedenti.
again the first response to the third nocturn:
Candor lucis, perpurum speculum
Patris splendor, perlustrans saeculum,
Nubis levis intrans umbraculum
In AEgypti venit ergastulum.
Virgo circumdedit virum
Mel mandentem et butyrum.
upon which follows as second response the beautiful picture of
the Trinity in the following form:
A Veterani facie manavit ardens fiuvius:
Antiquus est ingenitus, et facies est Filius,
Ardoris fluxus Spiritus, duorum amor medius.
Sic olim multifarie
Prophetis luxit Trinitas,
Quam post pandit ecclesiae
In carne fulgens veritas.
II. HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE
It cannot be definitely stated which of the three old abbeys:
Pruem, Landevennec, or Saint-Amand can claim priority in
composing a rhythmical office. There is no doubt however that
Saint-Amand and the monasteries in Hainault, Flanders, and
Brabant, was the real starting-point of this style of poetry, as
long ago as the ninth century. The pioneer in music, the Monk
Hucbald of Saint-Amand, composed at least two, probably four,
rhythmical offices; and the larger number of the older offices
were used liturgically in those monasteries and cities which had
some connexion with Saint-Amand. From there this new branch of
hymnody very soon found its way to France, and in the tenth and
eleventh, and particularly in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, showed fine, if not the finest results, both in
quality and quantity. Worthy of especial mention as poets of
this order are: the Abbots Odo (927-42) and Odilo (994-1049) of
Cluny, Bishop Fulbert of Chartres (1017-28), the Benedictine
Monk Odorannus of Sens (died 1045), Pope Leo IX (died 1054);
Bishop Stephen of Tournay (1192-1203); Archdeacon Rainald of St.
Maurice in Angers (died about 1074); Bishop Richard de Gerberoy
of Amiens (1204-10); Prior Arnaud du Pre of Toulouse (died
1306), and the General of the Dominican Order, Martialis
Auribelli, who in 1456 wrote a rhymed office for the purpose of
glorifying St. Vincent Ferrer. The most eminent poet and
composer of offices belongs to Germany by birth, but more so to
France by reason of his activity; he is Julian von Speyer,
director of the orchestra at the Frankish royal court,
afterwards Franciscan friar and choir master in the Paris
convent, where about 1240 he composed words and music for the
two well-known offices in honour of St. Francis of Assisi and of
St. Anthony of Padua (Anal. Hymn., V, nos. 61 and 42). These two
productions, the musical value of which has in many ways been
overestimated, served as a prototype for a goodly number of
successive offices in honour of saints of the Franciscan Order
as well as of others. In Germany the rhymed offices were just as
popular as in France. As early as in the ninth century an
office, in honour of St. Chrysantus and Daria, had its origin
probably in Pruem, perhaps through Friar Wandalbert (Anal.
Hymn,, XXV, no. 73); perhaps not much later through Abbot
Gurdestin of Landevennec a similar poem in honour of St.
Winwaloeus (Anal. Hymn., XVIII, no. 100). As hailing from
Germany two other composers of rhythmical offices in the earlier
period have become known: Abbot Berno of Reichenau (died 1048)
and Abbot Udalschalc of Maischach at Augsburg (died 1150).
The other German poets whose names can be given belong to a
period as late as the fifteenth century, as e. g. Provost
Lippold of Steinberg and Bishop Johann Hofmann of Meissen.
England took an early part in this style of poetry, but
unfortunately most of the offices which originated there have
been lost. Brilliant among the English poets is Archbishop
Pecham whose office of the Trinity has been discussed above.
Next to him are worthy of especial mention Cardinal Adam Easton
(died 1397) and the Carmelite John Horneby of Lincoln, who about
1370 composed a rhymed office in honour of the Holy Name of
Jesus, and of the Visitation of Our Lady. Italy seems to have a
relatively small representation; Rome itself, i. e. the Roman
Breviary, as we know, did not favour innovations, and
consequently was reluctant to adopt rhythmical offices. The
famous Archbishop Alfons of Salerno (1058-85) is presumably the
oldest Italian poet of this kind. Besides him we can name only
Abbot Reinaldus de Colle di Mezzo (twelfth century), and the
General of the Dominicans, Raymundus de Vineis from Capua
(fourteenth century). In Sicily and in Spain the rhymed offices
were popular and quite numerous, but with the exception of the
Franciscan Fra Gil de Zamora, who about the middle of the
fifteenth century composed an office in honour of the Blessed
Virgin (Anal. Hymn., XVII, no. 8) it has been impossible to cite
by name from those two countries any other poet who took part in
composing rhythmical offices. Towards the close of the
thirteenth century, Scandinavia also comes to the fore with
rhymed offices, in a most dignified manner. Special attention
should be called to Bishop Brynolphus of Skara (1278-1317),
Archbishop Birgerus Gregorii of Upsala (died 1383), Bishop
Nicolaus of Linkoeping (1374-91), and Johannes Benechini of
Oeland (about 1440). The number of offices where the composer's
name is known is insignificantly small. No less than seven
hundred anonymous rhythmical offices have been brought to light
during the last twenty years through the "Analecta Hymnica". It
is true not all of them are works of art; particularly during
the fifteenth century many offices with tasteless rhyming and
shallow contents reflect the general decadence of hymnody. Many,
however, belong to the best products of religious lyric poetry.
For six centuries in all countries of the West, men of different
ranks and stations in life, among them the highest dignitaries
of the Church, took part in this style of poetry, which enjoyed
absolute popularity in all dioceses. Hence one may surmise the
significance of the rhythmical offices with reference to the
history of civilization, their importance in history and
development of liturgy, and above all their influence on other
poetry and literature.
BLUME AND DREVES, Analecta Hymnica medii oevi, V, XIII, XVII,
XVIII-XXVI, XXVIII, XL Va, LII, appendix (Leipzig, 1889-1909);
BAeUMER, Reimofficien, 356-64, in Gesch. des Breviers (Freiburg,
1895); BLUME, Zur Poesie des kirchlichen Stundengebetes, 132-45,
in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (1898); FELDER, Liturgische
Reimofficien auf die hll. Franziskus und Antonius (Fribourg,
1901).
CLEMENS BLUME.
Pedro de Ribadeneira
Pedro de Ribadeneira
(or RIBADENEYRA and among Spaniards often RIVADENEIRA)
Pedro De Ribadeneira was born at Toledo, of a noble Castilian
family, 1 Nov., 1526 (Astrain, I, 206); died 22 Sept., 1611. His
father Alvaro Ortiz de Cisneros, was the son of Pedro Gonzales
Cedillo and grandson of Hernando Ortiz de Cisneros whom
Ferdinand IV had honoured with the governorship of Toledo and
important missions. His mother, of the illustrious house of
Villalobos, was still more distinguished for her virtue than for
her birth. Already the mother of three daughters, she promised
to consecrate her fourth child to the Blessed Virgin if it
should be a son. Thus vowed to Mary before his birth,
Ribadeneira received in baptism the name of Pedro which had been
borne by his paternal grandfather and that of Ribadeneira in
memory of his maternal grandmother, of one of the first families
of Galicia. In the capacity of page he followed Cardinal
Alexander Farnese to Italy, and at Rome entered the Society of
Jesus at the age of fourteen, on 18 Sept., 1540, eight days
before the approval of the order by Paul III.
After having attended the Universities of Paris, Louvain, and
Padua, where, besides the moral crises which assailed him, he
often had to encounter great hardships and habitually confined
himself to very meagre fare [he wrote to St. Ignatius (Epp.
mixtae, V, 649): "Quanto al nostro magnare ordinariamente e, a
disnare un poco de menestra et un poco de carne, et con questo e
finito"]. He was ordered in November, 1549, to go to Palermo, to
profess rhetoric at the new college which the Society had just
opened in that city. He filled this chair for two years and a
half, devoting his leisure time to visiting and consoling the
sick in the hospitals. Meanwhile St. Ignatius was negotiating
the creation of the German College which was to give Germany a
chosen clergy as remarkable for virtue and orthodoxy as for
learning: his efforts were soon successful, and during the
autumn of 1552 he called on the talent and eloquence of the
young professor of rhetoric at Palermo. Ribadeneira amply
fulfilled the expectations of his master and delivered the
inaugural address amid the applause of an august assembly of
prelates and Roman nobles. He was ordained priest 8 December,
1553 (Epp. mixtae, III, 179); during the twenty-one years which
followed he constantly filled the most important posts in the
government of his order. From 1556 to 1560 he devoted his
activity to securing the official recognition of the Society of
Jesus in the Low Countries. At the same time he was charged by
his general with the duty of promulgating and causing to be
accepted in the Belgian houses the Constitutions, which St.
Ignatius had just completed at the cost of much labour.
But these diplomatic and administrative missions did not exhaust
Ribadeneira's zeal. He still applied himself ardently to
preaching. In December, 1555 he preached at Louvain with
wonderful success, and likewise in January, 1556, at Brussels.
On 25 November of the same year he left Belgium and reached Rome
3 February, 1557, setting out again, 17 October for Flanders.
His sojourn in the Low Countries was interrupted for five months
(November, 1558 to March, 1559); this period he spent in London,
having been summoned thither on account of the sickness of Mary
Tudor, Queen of England, which ended in her death. In the summer
of 1559 he was once more with his general, Lainez, whose right
hand he truly was. On 3 November, 1560, he made his solemn
profession, and from then until the death of St. Francis Borgia
(1572) he continued to reside in Italy, filling in turn the
posts of provincial of Tuscany, of commissary-general of the
Society in Sicily, visitor of Lombardy, and assistant for Spain
and Portugal. The accession of Father Everard Mercurian as
general of the order brought a great change to Ribadeneira. His
health being much impaired, he was ordered to Spain, preferably
to Toledo, his native town, to recuperate. This was a dreadful
blow to the poor invalid, a remedy worse than the disease. He
obeyed, but had been scarcely a year in his native land when he
began to importune his general by letter to permit him to return
to Italy. These solicitations continued for several years. At
the same time his superiors saw that he was as sick in mind as
in body, and that his religious spirit was somewhat shaken. Not
only was he lax in his religious observances, but he did not
hesitate to criticize the persons and affairs of the Society, so
much so that he was strongly suspected of being the author of
the memoirs then circulated through Spain against the Jesuits
(Astrain, III, 106-10). This, however, was a mistake, and his
innocence was recognized in 1578. He it was who took upon
himself the task of refuting the calumnies which
mischief-makers, apparently Jesuits, went about disseminating
against the Constitutions of the Society, nor did he show less
ardour and filial piety in making known the life of St. Ignatius
Loyola and promoting his canonization.
Outside of the Society of Jesus, Ribadeneira is chiefly known
for his literary works. From the day of his arrival in Spain to
repair his failing health until the day of his death his career
was that of a brilliant writer. His compatriots regard him as a
master of Castilian and rank him among the classic authors of
their tongue. All lines were familiar to him, but he preferred
history and ascetical literature. His chief claim to glory is
his Life of St. Ignatius Loyola, in which he speaks as an
eye-witness, admirably supported by documents. Perhaps the work
abounds too much in anecdotal details which tend to obscure the
grand aspect of the saint's character and genius (Analecta
Bolland., XXIII, 513). It appeared for the first time in Latin
at Naples in 1572 (ibid., XXI, 230). The first Spanish edition,
revised and considerably augmented by the author, dates from
1583. Other editions followed, all of them revised by the
author; that of 1594 seems to contain the final text. It was
soon translated into most of the European languages. Among his
other works must be mentioned his "Historia eclesiastica del
Cisma del reino de Inglaterra" and the "Flos sanctorum", which
has been very popular in many countries. Some unpublished works
of his deserve publication, notably his History of the
persecution of the Society of Jesus and his History of the
Spanish Assistancy.
ASTRAIN, Historia de la Compania de Jesus en le Asistencia de
Espana (Madrid, 1902-09); PEAT, Histoire du Pere Ribadeneyra,
disciple de S. Ignace (Paris, 1862); SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque
de la C. de J., VI, 1724-58; DE LA FUENTE, Obras escojidas del
Padre Pedro de Rivadeneira, con una noticia de su vida y juicio
critico de sus escritos in Biblioteca de autores Espanoles, LX
(1868); Monumenta historica S.J.; Ignatiana, ser. I, Epistoloe,
II; ser. IV, I; POLANCO, Chronicon Soc. Jesu, VI; Epistoloe
mixtoe, V.
FRANCIS VAN ORTROY.
Andres Perez de Ribas
Andres Perez De Ribas
A pioneer missionary, historian of north-western Mexico; born at
Cordova, Spain, 1576; died in Mexico, 26 March, 1655. He joined
the Society of Jesus in 1602, coming at once to America, and
finishing his novitiate in Mexico in 1604. In the same year he
was sent to undertake the Christianization of the Ahome and
Suaqui of northern Sinaloa, of whom the former were friendly and
anxious for teachers, while the latter had just been brought to
submission after a hard campaign. He succeeded so well that
within a year he had both tribes gathered into regular towns,
each with a well-built church, while all of the Ahome and a
large part of the Suaqui had been baptized. The two tribes
together numbered about 10,000 souls. In 1613, being then
superior of the Sinaloa district, he was instrumental in
procuring the submission of a hostile mountain tribe. In 1617,
in company with other Jesuit missionaries whom he had brought
from Mexico City, he began the conversion of the powerful and
largely hostile Yaqui tribe (q.v.) of Sonora, estimated at
30,000 souls, with such success that within a few years most of
them had been gathered into orderly town communities. In 1620 he
was recalled to Mexico to assist in the college, being
ultimately appointed provincial, which post he held for several
years. After a visit to Rome in 1643 to take part in the
election of a general of the order, he devoted himself chiefly
to study and writing until his death.
He left numerous works, religious and historical, most of which
are still in manuscript, but his reputation as an historian
rests secure upon his history of the Jesuit missions of Mexico
published at Madrid in 1645, one year after its completion,
under the title: "Historia de los Triunfos de Nuestra Santa Fe
entre gentes las mas barbaras . . . conseguidos por los soldados
de la milicia de Ia Compania de Jesus en las misiones de la
Provincia de Nueva-Espana". Of this work Bancroft says: "It is a
complete history of Jesuit work in Nueva Vizcaya, practically
the only history the country had from 1590 to 1644, written not
only by a contemporary author but by a prominent actor in the
events narrated, who had access to all the voluminous
correspondence of his order, comparatively few of which
documents have been preserved. In short, Ribas wrote under the
most favourable circumstances and made good use of his
opportunities."
ALEGRE, Historia de la Compania de Jesus (Mexico, 1841);
BANCROFT, Hist. North Mexican States and Texas, I (San
Francisco, 1886); BERISTAIN Y SOUZA, Biblioteca
Hispano-Americana Setentrional, III (Amecemeca, 1883).
JAMES MOONEY
Diocese of Preto Ribeirao
Ribeirao Preto
(DE RIBERAO PRETO)
A suffragan see of the Archdiocese of Sao Paulo, Brazil,
established 7 June, 1908, with a Catholic population of 500,000
souls. The first and present bishop, Rt. Rev. Alberto Jose
Gonc,alves, was born 20 July, 1859, elevated 5 December, 1908,
and consecrated 29 April, 1909. The district of Ribeirao Preto
is at present the most important one of the State of Sao Paulo,
both on account of the richness of its soil and the great number
of agricultural, industrial, and commercial establishments
therein. Its principal product is coffee, the shipments of which
are so considerable as to necessitate the constant running of an
extraordinary number of trains.
The seat of the diocese is the city of Ribeirao Preto, situated
on the shores of Ribeirao Preto and Ribeirao Retiro, 264 miles
from the capital of the state. The municipality, created by law
of 1 April, 1889, is divided into four wards, viz.: Villa
Tibeiro, Barracao, Morro do Cipo, and Republica. It is, like
most of the interior towns of Sao Paulo, of modern construction.
The city is lighted by electric light and has excellent sewer
and water-supply systems. The streets are well laid, straight,
and intersecting at right angles, with many parks and squares.
The cathedral now nearing completion will be one of the finest
buildings of its kind in Brazil. It is well provided with
schools and colleges, prominent among which are those maintained
by the Church.
JULIAN MORENO-LACALLE.
Jusepe de Ribera
Jusepe de Ribera
Jusepe De Ribera, called also SPAGNOLETTO, L'ESPAGNOLET (the
little Spaniard), painter born at Jativa, 12 Jan., 1588; died at
Naples, 1656. Fantastic accounts have been given of his early
history; his father was said to be a noble, captain of the
fortress of Naples, etc. All this is pure romance. A pupil of
Ribalta, the author of many beautiful pictures in the churches
of Valencia, the young man desired to know Italy. He was a very
determined character. At eighteen, alone and without resources,
he begged in the streets of Rome in order to live, and performed
the services of a lackey. A picture by Caravaggio aroused his
admiration, and he set out for Naples in search of the artist,
but the latter had just died (1609). Ribera was then only
twenty. For fifteen years the artist is entirely lost sight of;
it is thought that he travelled in upper Italy. He is again
found at Naples in 1626, at which time he was married, living
like a nobleman, keeping his carriage and a train of followers,
received by viceroys, the accomplished host of all travelling
artists, and very proud of his title of Roman Academician.
Velasquez paid him a visit on each of his journeys (1630, 1649).
A sorrow clouded the end of his life; his daughter was seduced
by Don Juan of Austria. Her father seems to have died of grief,
but the story of his suicide is a fiction.
Ribera's name is synonymous with a terrifying art of wild-beast
fighters and executioners. Not that he did not paint charming
figures. No artist of his time, not excepting Rubens or Guido
Reni, was more sensitive to a certain ideal of Correggio-like
grace. But Ribera did not love either ugliness or beauty for
themselves, seeking them in turn only to arouse emotion. His
fixed idea, which recurs in every form in his art, is the
pursuit and cultivation of sensation. In fact the whole of
Ribera's work must be understood as that of a man who made the
pathetic the condition of art and the reason of the beautiful.
It is the negation of the art of the Renaissance, the reaction
of asceticism and the Catholic Reformation on the voluptuous
paganism of the sixteenth century. Hence the preference for the
popular types, the weather-beaten and wrinkled beggar, and
especially the old man. This "aging" of art about 1600 is a sign
of the century. Heroic youth and pure beauty were dead for a
long time. The anchorites and wasted cenobites, the
parchment-like St. Jeromes, these singular methods of depicting
the mystical life seem Ribera's personal creation; to show the
ruins of the human body, the drama of a long existence written
in furrows and wrinkles, all engraved by a pencil which digs and
scrutinizes, using the sunlight as a kind of acid which bites
and makes dark shadows, was one of the artist's most cherished
formulas.
No one demonstrates so well the profound change which took place
in men's minds after the Reformation and the Council of Trent.
Thenceforth concern for character and accent forestalled every
other consideration. Leanness, weariness, and abasement became
the pictorial signs of the spiritual life. A sombre energy
breathes in these figures of Apostles, prophets, saints, and
philosophers. Search for character became that of ugliness and
monstrosity. Nothing is so personal to Ribera as this love of
deformity. Paintings like the portrait of "Cambazo", the blind
sculptor, the "Bearded Woman" (Prado, 1630), and the "Club Foot"
of the Louvre (1651) inaugurate curiosities which had happily
been foreign to the spirit of the Renaissance. They show a
gloomy pleasure in humiliating human nature. Art, which formerly
used to glorify life, now violently emphasized its vices and
defects. The artist seized upon the most ghastly aspects even of
antiquity. Cato of Utica howling and distending his wound, Ixion
on his wheel, Sisyphus beneath his rock. This artistic terrorism
won for Ribera his sinister reputation, and it must be admitted
that it had depraved and perverted qualities. The sight of blood
and torture as the source of pleasure is more pagan than the joy
of life and the laughing sensuality of the Renaissance. At times
Ribera's art seems a dangerous return to the delights of the
amphitheatre. His "Apollo and Marsyas" (Naples) his "Duel" or
"Match of Women" (Prado) recall the programme of some spectacle
manager of the decadence. In nothing is Ribera more "Latin" than
in this sanguinary tradition of the games of the circus.
However, it would be unjust wholly to condemn this singular
taste in accordance with our modern ideas. At least we cannot
deny extraordinary merit to the scenes of martyrdom painted by
Ribera. This great master has never been surpassed as a
practical artist. For plastic realism, clearness of drawing and
evidence of composition the "Martyrdom of St. Bartholomew"
(there are in Europe a dozen copies, of which the most beautiful
is at the Prado) is one of the masterpieces of Spanish genius.
It is impossible to imagine a more novel and striking idea. No
one has spoken a language more simple and direct. In this class
of subjects Rubens usually avoids atrocity by an oratorical
turn, by the splendour of his discourse, the lyric brilliancy of
the colouring. Ribera's point of view is scarcely less powerful
with much less artifice. It is less transformed and developed.
The action is collected in fewer persons. The gestures are less
redundant, with a more spontaneous quality. The tone is more
sober and at the same time stronger. Everything seems more
severe and of a more concentrated violence. The art also, while
perhaps not the most elevated of all, is at least one of the
most original and convincing. Few artiste have given us, if not
serene enjoyment, more serious thoughts. The "St. Lawrence" of
the Vatican is scarcely less beautiful than the "St.
Bartholomew".
Moreover it must not be thought that these ideas of violence
exhaust Ribera's art. They are supplemented by sweet ideas, and
in his work horrible pictures alternate with tender ones. There
is a type of young woman or rather young girl, still almost a
child, of delicate beauty with candid oval features and rather
thin arms, with streaming hair and an air of ignorance, a type
of paradoxical grace which is found in his "Rapture of St.
Magdalen" (Madrid, Academy of S. Fernando), or the "St. Agnes"
of the Dresden Museum. This virginal figure is truly the
"eternal feminine" of a country which more than any other
dreamed of love and sought to deify its object summarizing in it
the most irreconcilable desires and virtues. No painter has
endowed the subject of the Immaculate Conception with such
grandeur as Ribera in his picture for the Ursulines of Salamanca
(1636). Even a certain familiar turn of imagination, a certain
intimate and domestic piety, a sweetness, an amicable and
popular cordiality which would seem unknown to this savage
spirit were not foreign to him. In more than one instance he
reminds us of Murillo. He painted several "Holy Families",
"Housekeeping in the Carpenter Shop" (Gallery of the Duke of
Norfolk). All that is inspired by tender reverie about cradles
and chaste alcoves, all the distracting delights in which modern
religion rejoices and which sometimes result in affectation, are
found in more than germ in the art of this painter, who is
regarded by many as cruel and uniformly inhuman. Thus throughout
his work scenes of carnage are succeeded by scenes of love,
atrocious visions by visions of beauty. They complete each other
or rather the impression they convey is heightened by contrast.
And under both forms the artist incessantly sought one object,
namely to obtain the maximum of emotion; his art expresses the
most intense nervous life.
This is the genius of antithesis. It forms the very basis of
Ribera's art, the condition of his ideas, and even dictates the
customary processes of his chiaroscuro. For Ribera's
chiaroscuro, scarcely less personal than that of Rembrandt, is,
no less than the latter's, inseparable from a certain manner of
feeling. Less supple than the latter less enveloping, less
penetrating, less permeable by the light, twilight, and
penumbra, it proceeds more roughly by clearer oppositions and
sharp intersections of light and darkness. Contrary to
Rembrandt, Ribera does not decompose or discolour, his palette
does not dissolve under the influence of shadows, and nothing is
so peculiar to him as certain superexcited notes of furious red.
Nevertheless, compared to Caravaggio, his chiaroscuro is much
more than a mere means of relief. The canvas assumes a
vulcanized, carbonized appearance. Large wan shapes stand out
from the asphalt of the background, and the shadows about them
deepen and accumulate a kind of obscure tragic capacity. There
is always the same twofold rhythm, the same pathetic formula of
a dramatized universe regarded as a duel between sorrow and joy,
day and night. This striking formula, infinitely less subtile
than that of Rembrandt, nevertheless had an immense success. For
all the schools of the south Caravaggio's chiaroscuro perfected
by Ribera had the force of law, such as it is found throughout
the Neapolitan school, in Stanzioni, Salvator Rosa, Luca
Giordano. In modern times Bonnat and Ribot painted as though
they knew no master but Ribera.
Rest came to this violent nature towards the end of his life;
from the idea of contrast he rose to that of harmony. His last
works, the "Club Foot" and the "Adoration of the Shepherds"
(1650), both in the Louvre, are painted in a silvery tone which
seems to foreshadow the light of Velasquez. His hand had not
lost its vigour, its care for truth; he always displayed the
same implacable and, as it were, inflexible realism. The objects
of still life in the "Adoration of the Shepherds" have not been
equalled by any specialist, but these works are marked by a new
serenity. This impassioned genius leaves us under a tranquil
impression; we catch a ray-- should it rather be called a
reflection?-- the Olympian genius of the author of "The Maids of
Honour".
Ribera was long the only Spanish painter who enjoyed a European
fame; this he owed to the fact that he had lived at Naples and
has often been classed with the European school. Because of this
he is now denied the glory which was formerly his. He is
regarded more or less as a deserter, at any rate as the least
national of Spanish painters. But in the seventeenth century
Naples was still Spanish, and by living there a man did not
cease to be a Spanish subject. By removing the centre of the
school to Naples, Ribera did Spain a great service. Spanish art,
hitherto little known, almost lost at Valencia and Seville,
thanks to Ribera was put into wider circulation. Through the
authority of a master recognized even at Rome the school felt
emboldened and encouraged. It is true that his art, although
more Spanish than any other, is also somewhat less specialized;
it is cosmopolitan. Like Seneca and Lucian, who came from
Cordova, and St. Augustine, who came from Carthage, Ribera has
expressed in a universal language the ideal of the country where
life has most savour.
DOMINICI, Vite de' pittori . . . napoletani (Naples, 1742-1743;
2nd ed., Naples, 1844); PALOMINO, El Museo Pictorico, I (Madrid,
1715); II (Madrid, 1724); Noticias, Elogios y Vidas de Los
Pintores, at the end of vol. II, Separate edition (London,
1742), in German (Dresden, 1781); BERMUDEZ, Diccionario
historico de los mas ilustres profesores de las bellas artes en
Espana (Madrid, 1800); STIRLING. Annals of the artists of Spain
(London, 1848); VIARDOT, Notices sur les principaux peintres de
l'Espagne (Paris, 1839); BLANC, Ecole Espagnole (1869); MEYER,
Ribera (Strasburg, 1908); LAFOND, Ribera et Zurbaran (Paris,
1910).
LOUIS GILLET.
Ricardus Anglicus
Ricardus Anglicus
Ricardus Anglicus, Archdeacon of Bologna, was an English priest
who was rector of the law school at the University of Bologna in
1226, and who, by new methods of explaining legal proceedings,
became recognized as the pioneer of scientific judicial
procedure in the twelfth century. His long-lost work "Ordo
Judiciarius" was discovered in Manuscript by Wunderlich in Douai
and published by Witt in 1851. A more correct Manuscript was
subsequently discovered at Brussels by Sir Travers Twiss, who,
on evidence which seems insufficient, followed Panciroli in
identifying him with the celebrated Bishop Richard Poor (died
1237). Probably he graduated in Paris, as a Papal Bull of 1218
refers to "Ricardus Anglicus doctor Parisiensis", but there is
no evidence to connect him with Oxford. He also wrote glosses on
the papal decretals, and distinctions on the Decree of Gratian.
He must be distinguished from his contemporary, Ricardus
Anglicanus, a physician.
RASHDALL, Mediaeval Universities, II, 750 (London, 1895); TWISS,
Law Magazine and Review, May, 1894; SARTI AND FATTORINI, De
claris Archigymnasii Bononiensis Professoribus; BLAKISTON in
Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. Poor, Richard.
EDWIN BURTON.
Nicholas Riccardi
Nicholas Riccardi
A theologian, writer and preacher; born at Genoa, 1585; died at
Rome, 30 May, 1639. Physically he was unprepossessing, even
slightly deformed. His physical deficiencies, however, were
abundantly compensated for by mentality of the highest order.
His natural taste for study was encouraged by his parents who
sent him to Spain to pursue his studies in the Pincian Academy.
While a student at this institution he entered the Dominican
order and was invested with its habit in the Convent of St.
Paul, where he studied philosophy and theology. So brilliant was
his record that after completing his studies he was made a
professor of Thomistic theology at Pincia. While discharging his
academic duties, he acquired a reputation as a preacher second
only to his fame as a theologian. As a preacher Philip III of
Spain named him "The Marvel", a sobriquet by which he was known
in Spain and at Rome till the end of his life. On his removal to
Rome in 1621, he acquired the confidence of Urban VIII. He was
made regent of studies and professor of theology at the College
of the Minerva. In 1629 Urban VIII appointed him Master of the
Sacred Palace to succeed Niccolo Ridolphi, recently elected
Master General of the Dominicans. Shortly after this the same
pontiff appointed him pontifical preacher. These two offices he
discharged with distinction. His extant works number twenty.
Besides several volumes of sermons for Advent, Lent, and special
occasions, his writings treat of Scripture, theology, and
history. One of his best known works is the "History of the
Council of Trent" (Rome, 1627). His commentaries treat of all
the books of Scripture, and are notable for their originality,
clearness, and profound learning. Two other commentaries treat
of the Lord's Prayer and the Canticle of Canticles.
QUETIF-ECHARD, SS. Ord. Praed., II, 503, 504.
JOHN B. O'CONNOR.
Lorenzo Ricci
Lorenzo Ricci
General of the Society of Jesus b. at Florence, 2 Aug., 1703; d.
at the Castle of Sant' Angelo, Rome, 24 Nov., 1775. He belonged
to one of the most ancient, and illustrious families of Tuscany.
He had two brothers, one of whom subsequently became canon of
the. cathedral and the other was raised by Francis I, Grand Duke
of Tuscany, to the dignity of first syndic of the Grand duchy.
Sent when very young to Prato to pursue, his studies under the
direction of the Society of Jesus in the celebrated Cicognini
college, he entered the society when he was scarcely fifteen, 16
Dec., 1718, at the novitiate of S. Andrea at Rome. Having made
the usual course of philosophical and theological studies and
twice defended with rare success public theses in these
subjects, he was successively charged with teaching belles
lettres and philosophy it Siena, and philosophy and theology at
the Roman College, from which he was promoted to the foremost
office of his order. Meanwhile he was admitted to the profession
of the four vows, 15 Aug., 1736. About 1751 his edifying and
regular life, his discretion, gentleness, and simplicity caused
him to be appointed to the important office of spiritual father,
the duties of which he discharged to the satisfaction of all. In
1755 Father Luigi Centurione, who appreciated his eminent
qualities, chose him as secretary of the society. Finally in the
Nineteenth Congregation he was elected general by unanimous
vote, (21 May, 1758). It was at the most stormy and distressed
period of its existence that the senate of the society placed
its government and its destinies in the, hand of a man deeply
virtuous and endowed with rare merit, but, who was inexperienced
in the art of governing and who had always lived apart from the
world and diplomatic intrigues. The historiographer Julius
Cordara, who lived near Ricci and seems to have known him
intimately, deplored this choice: "Eundem tot, inter iactationes
ac fluctus cum aliquid praeter morem audendum et malis
inusitatis inusitata remedia adhibenda videbantur, propter ipsam
nature placiditatem et nulla unquam causa incalescentem animum,
minus aptum arbitrabar" (On account of his placid nature and too
even temper, I regarded him as little suited for a time when
disturbance and storm seem to require extraordinary application
of unusual remedies to unusual evils). (Denkwurdigkeiten der
Jesuiten, p.19.) On the other hand it must be admitted that the
new general did not have much leeway.
In his first interview with Clement XIII, who had assumed the
tiara 6 July, 1758, and always showed himself deeply attached to
the Jesuits, the pope counselled him: "Silentium, patientiam et
preces; cetera sibi curae fore" (Cordara, op. cit., 22), The
saintly superior followed this line of conduct to the letter and
incessantly inculcated it in his subordinates. The seven
encyclical letters which he addressed to them in the fifteen
years of his generalship all breathe the sweetest and tenderest
piety and zeal for their religious perfection. "Preces vestras",
he says in the last, that of 21 Feb., 1773, "animate omni
pietatis exercitio accurate fervideque obeundo, mutua inter
vosmetipsos caritate, obedientia et observantia erga eos qui
vobis Dei loco sunt, tolerantia laborurn, aerumnarum,
paupertatis, contumeliarum, secessu et solitudine, prudentia et
evangelica in agendo simplicitate, boni exempli operibus,
piisque colloquiis" (Let your prayers be inspired by every
practice of piety, with mutual charity among yourselves,
obedience and respect for those who hold the place of God in
your regard, en durance of labour, of hardships, of poverty, of
insult in retreat and solitude, with prudence and evangelical
simplicity of conduct, the example of good works, and pious
conversation). (Epistolae praepositorum generalium S.J., 11,
Ghent 1847, 306). This pious and profoundly upright man was
nevertheless not wanting on occasion in courage and firmness.
When it was suggested to save the French provinces of his order
by giving them a superior entirely independent of the general of
Rome he refused thus to transgress the. constitutions committed
to his care and uttered to the pope the ever famous saying:
"Sint ut sunt aut non sint" (Leave them as they are or not at
all). (Cordara, op. cit., 35) Unfortunately he placed all his
confidence in hi,, assistant for Italy, Father Timoni, of Greek
origin, "vir quippe praefidens sibi, iudiciique sui plus nimio
tenax" (Idem, op. cit., 20), who, like many other expected the
society to be saved by a miracle of Providence. When, to the
mass of pamphlets aimed against the Jesuits, the Portuguese
episcopate brought the reinforcement of pastoral letters, a
number of bishops wrote to the pope letters which were very
eulogistic of the Society of Jesus and its Institute, and
Clement XIII hastened to send a copy to Father Ricci. It was a
brilliant apologia for the order Cordara and many of his
brethren considered it, expedient to publish this correspondence
in full with the sole title: "ludicium Ecclesiae, universae, de
statu praesenti Societatis Iesu" (op. cit., 26). Timoni, who
fancied that no one would dare any thing against the Jesuits of
Portugal, was of a contrary opinion, and the general was won
over to his way of thinking.
Disaster followed disaster, and Ricci experienced the most
serious material difficulties in assisting the members who were
expelled from every country. At his instance, and perhaps even
with his collaboration, Clement XIII, solicitous for the fate of
the Society, published 7 January, 1765, the Bull "Apostolicam
pascendi", which was a cogent defence of the Institute and its
members (Masson, "Le cardinal de, Bernis depuis son ministere"
80). But even the pontiff's intervention could not stay the
devastating torrent. After the suppression of the Jesuits in
Naples and the Duchy of Parma, the ambassadors of France, Spain,
and Portugal went (Jan., 1769) to request officially of the pope
the total suppression of the society. This was the death-blow of
Clement XIII, who died some days later (2 Feb., 1769) of an
apoplectic attack. His successor, the conventual Ganganelli,
little resembled him. Whatever may have been his sympathies for
the order prior to his elevation to the sovereign pontificate,
and his indebtedness to Ricci, who had used his powerful
influence to secure for him the cardinal's hat, it is
indisputable that once he became pope he assumed at least in
appearance a hostile attitude. "Se palam Jesuitis infensum
praebere atque ita quidem, ut ne generalem quidem praepositum in
conspectum admitteret" (Cordara, 43). There is no necessity of
repeating even briefly the history of the pontificate of Clement
XIV (18 May, 1769-22 Sept., 1774), which was absorbed by his
measures to bring about the suppression of the Society of Jesus.
Despite the exactions and outrageous injustices which the Jesuit
houses had to undergo even at Rome, the general did not give up
hope of a speedy deliverance, as is testified by the letter he
wrote to Cordara the day after the feast of St. Ignatius, 1773
(Cordara, loc. cit., 53). Although the Brief of abolition had
been signed by the pope ten days previously, Father Ricci was
suddenly notified on the evening of 16 August. The next day he
was assigned the English College as residence, until 23 Sept.,
1773, when he was removed to the Castle of Sant' Angelo, where
he was held in strict captivity for the remaining two years of
his life. The surveillance was so severe that he did not learn
of the death of his secretary Cornolli, imprisoned with him and
in his vicinity, until six months after the event=2E To satisfy
the hatred of his enemies his trial and that of his companions
was hastened, but the judge ended by recognizing "nunquam
objectos sibi reos his innocentiores; Riccium etiam ut hominem
vere sanctum dilaudabat" (Cordara, op. cit., 62); and Cardinal
de Bernis dared to write (5 July): "There are not, perhaps,
sufficient proofs for judges, but there are enough for upright
and reasonable men" (Masson, op. cit., 324).
Justice required that the ex-general be at once set at liberty,
but nothing was done, apparently through fear lest the scattered
Jesuits should gather about their old head, to reconstruct their
society at the centre of Catholicism. At the end of August,
1775, Ricci sent an appeal to the new pope, Pius VI, to obtain
his release. But while his claims were being considered by the
circle of the Sovereign Pontiff, death came to summon the
venerable old man to the tribunal of the supreme Judge. Five
days previously, when about to receive Holy Viaticum, he made
this double protest: (1) "I declare and protest that the
suppressed Society of Jesus has not given any cause for its
suppression; this I declare and protest with all that moral
certainty that a superior well informed of his order can have.
(2) I declare and protest that I have not given any cause, even
the slightest, for my imprisonment; this I declare and protest
with that supreme certainty and evidence that each one has of
his own actions. I make this second protest only because it is
necessary for the reputation of the suppressed Society of Jesus,
of which I was the general." (Murr, "Journal zur
Kunstgeschichte", IX, 281.) To do honour to his memory the pope
caused the celebration of elaborate funeral services in the
church of St. John of the Florentines near the Castle of Sant'
Angelo. As is customary with prelates, the body was placed on a
bed of state. It was carried in the evening to the Church of the
Gesu where it was buried in the vault reserved for the burial of
his predecessors in the government of the order.
CORDARA, Denkwuerdigkeiten in DOeLLINGER, Beitraege zur
politischen, kirchlichen und Culturgesch., III (1882), 1-74.
These memoirs carry much weight, inasmuch as Cordara speaks with
severity of his former brothers in arms, and of the Society of
Jesus. CARAYON, Documents inedits concernant la Compagnie de
Jesus, XVII, Le Pere Ricci et la suppression de la Compagnie de
Jesus en 1773, CLXXIV (Poitiers, 1869); Epistoloe proepositorum
generalium Societatis Jesu, If (Ghent, 1847); SMITH, The
Suppression of the Society of Jesus in The Month (1902-03);
MURR, Journal zur Kunstgesch. u. zur allgemeinen Litteratur, IX
(Nuremberg, 1780), 254-309; MASSON, Le Cardinal de Bernis depuis
son ministere 1758-1794 (Paris, 1903), a good collection of
documents, but the author does not know the history of the
Jesuits; RAVIGNAN, Clement XIII et Clement XI V, supplementary
volume, historical and critical documents (Paris, 1854); BOERO,
Osservazioni sopra l'istoria del pontificato di Clemente XIV
scritta dal P. A. Theiner (2nd ed., Monza, 1854), useful for
documents.
FRANCIS VAN ORTROY
Matteo Ricci
Matteo Ricci
Founder of the Catholic missions of China, b. at Macerata in the
Papal States, 6 Oct. 1552; d. at Peking, 11 May, 1610.
Ricci made his classical studies in his native town, studied law
at Rome for two years, and on 15 Aug., 1571, entered the Society
of Jesus at the Roman College, where he made his novitiate, and
philosophical and theological studies. While there he also
devoted his attention to mathematics, cosmology, and astronomy
under the direction of the celebrated Father Christopher
Clavius. In 1577 he asked to be sent on the missions in Farthest
Asia, and his request being granted he embarked at Lisbon, 24
March, 1578. Arriving at Goa, the capital of the Portuguese
Indies, on 13 Sept. of this year, he was employed there and at
Cochin in teaching and the ministry until the end of Lent, 1582,
when Father Alessandro Valignani (who had been his novice-master
at Rome but who since August, 1573, was in charge of all the
Jesuit missions in the East Indies) summoned him to Macao to
prepare to enter China. Father Ricci arrived at Macao on 7
August, 1582.
Beginning of the Mission
In the sixteenth century nothing remained of the Christian
communities founded in China by the Nestorian missionaries in
the seventh century and by the Catholic monks in the thirteenth
and fourteenth (see CHINA). Moreover it is doubtful whether the
native Chinese population was ever seriously affected by this
ancient evangelisation. For those desiring to resume the work
everything therefore remained to be done, and the obstacles were
greater than formerly. After the death of St. Francis Xavier (27
November, 1552) many fruitless attempts had been made. The first
missionary to whom Chinese barriers were temporarily lowered was
the Jesuit, Melchior Nunez Barreto, who twice went as far as
Canton, where he spent a month each time (1555). A Dominican,
Father Gaspar da Cruz, was also admitted to Canton for a month,
but he also had to refrain from "forming a Christian
Christianity". Still others, Jesuits, Augustinians, and
Fransciscans in 1568, 1575, 1579, and 1582 touched on Chinese
soil, only to be forced, sometimes with ill treatment, to
withdraw. To Father Valignani is due the credit of having seen
what prevented all these undertakings from having lasting
results. The attempts had hitherto been made haphazard, with men
insufficiently prepared and incapable of profiting by favourable
circumstances had they encountered them. Father Valignani
substituted the methodical attack with previous careful
selection of missionaries who, the field once open, would
implant Christianity there. To this end he first summoned to
Macao Father Michele de Ruggieri, who had also come to India
from Italy in 1578. Only twenty years had elapsed since the
Portuguese had succeeded in establishing their colony at the
portals of China, and the Chinese, attracted by opportunities
for gain, were flocking thither. Ruggieri reached Macao in July,
1579, and, following the given orders applied himself wholly to
the study of the Mandarin language, that is, Chinese, as it is
spoken throughout the empire by the officials and the educated.
His progress, though very slow, permitted him to labour with
more fruit than his predecessors in two sojourns at Canton
(1580-81) allowed him by an unwonted complacency of the
mandarins. Finally, after many untoward events, he was
authorized (10 Sept., 1583) to take up his residence with Father
Ricci at Chao-k'ing, the administrative capital of Canton.
Method of the Missionaries
The exercise of great prudence alone enabled the missionaries to
remain in the region which they had had such difficulty in
entering. Omitting all mention at first of their intention to
preach the Gospel, they declared to the mandarins who questioned
them concerning their object "that they were religious who had
left their country in the distant West because of the renown of
the good government of China, where they desired to remain till
their death, serving god, the Lord of Heaven". Had they
immediately declared their intention to preach a new religion,
they would never have been received; this would have clashed
with Chinese pride, which would not admit that China had
anything to learn from foreigners, and it would have especially
alarmed their politics, which beheld a national danger in every
innovation. However, the missionaries never hid their Faith nor
the fact that they were Christian priests. As soon as they were
established at Chao-k'ing they placed in a conspicuous part of
their house a picture of the Blessed Virgin with the Infant
Jesus in her arms. Visitors seldom failed to inquire the meaning
of this, to them, novel representation, and the missionaries
profited thereby to give them a first idea of Christianity. The
missionaries assumed the initiative in speaking of their
religion as soon as they had sufficiently overcome Chinese
antipathy and distrust to see their instructions desired, or at
least to be certain of making them understood without shocking
their listeners. They achieved this result by appealing to the
curiosity of the Chinese, by making them feel, without saying
so, that the foreigners had something new and interesting to
teach; to this end they made use of the European things they had
brought with them. Such were large and small clocks,
mathematical and astronomical instruments, prisms revealing the
various colours, musical instruments, oil paintings and prints,
cosmographical, geographical, and architectural works with
diagrams, maps, and views of towns and buildings, large volumes,
magnificently printed and splendidly bound, etc.
The Chinese, who had hitherto fancied that outside of their
country only barbarism existed, were astounded. Rumours of the
wonders displayed by the religious from the West soon spread on
all sides, and thenceforth their house was always filled,
especially with mandarins and the educated. It followed, says
Father Ricci, that "all came by degrees to have with regard to
our countries, our people, and especially of our educated men,
an idea vastly different from that which they had hitherto
entertained". This impression was intensified by the
explanations of the missionaries concerning their little museum
in reply to the numerous questions of their visitors.
One of the articles which most aroused their curiosity was a map
of the world. The Chinese had already had maps, called by their
geographers "descriptions of the world", but almost the entire
space was filled by the fifteen provinces of China, around which
were painted a bit of sea and a few islands on which were
inscribed the names of countries of which they had heard -- all
together was not as large as a small Chinese province. Naturally
the learned men of Chao-k'ing immediately protested when Father
Ricci pointed out the various parts of the world on the European
map and when they saw how small a part China played. But after
the missionaries had explained its construction and the care
taken by the geographers of the West to assign to each country
its actual position and boundaries, the wisest of them
surrendered to the evidence, and beginning with the Governor of
Chao-k'ing, all urged the missionary to make a copy of his map
with the names and inscriptions in Chinese. Ricci drew a larger
map of the world on which he wrote more detailed inscriptions,
suited to the needs of the Chinese; when the work was completed
the governor had it printed, giving all the copies as presents
to his friends in the province and at a distance. Father Ricci
does not hesitate to say: "This was the most useful work that
could be done at that time to dispose China to give credence to
the things of our holy Faith. . . . Their conception of the
greatness of their country and of the insignificance of all
other lands made them so proud that the w hole world seemed to
them savage and barbarous compared with themselves; it was
scarcely to be expected that they, while entertaining this idea,
would heed foreign masters." But now numbers were eager to learn
of European affairs from the missionaries, who profited by these
dispositions to introduce religion more frequently with their
explanations. For example, their beautiful Bibles and the
paintings and prints depicting religious subjects, monuments,
churches, etc., gave them an opportunity of speaking of "the
good customs in the countries of the Christians, of the
falseness of idolatry, of the conformity of the law of God with
natural reason and similar teachings found in the writings of
the ancient sages of China". This last instance shows that
Father Ricci already knew how to draw from his Chinese studies
testimony favourable to the religion which he was to preach.
It was soon evident to the missionaries that their remarks
regarding religion were no less interesting to many of their
visitors than their Western curiosities and learning, and, to
satisfy those who wished to learn more, they distributed
leaflets containing a Chinese translation of the Ten
Commandments, an abbreviation of the moral code much appreciated
by the Chinese, composed a small catechism in which the chief
points of Christian doctrine were explained in a dialogue
between a pagan and a European priest. This work, printed about
1584, was also well received, the highest mandarins of the
province considering themselves honoured to receive it as a
present. The missionaries distributed hundreds and thousands of
copies and thus "the good odour of our Faith began to be spread
throughout China". Having begun their direct apostolate in this
manner, they furthered it not a little by their edifying regular
life, their disinterestedness, their charity, and their patience
under persecutions which often destroyed the fruits of their
labours.
Development of the Missions
Father Ricci played the chief part in these early attempts to
make Christianity known to the Chinese. In 1607 Father Ruggieri
died in Europe, where he had been sent in 1588 by Father
Valignani to interest the Holy See more particularly in the
missions. Left alone with a young priest, a pupil rather than an
assistant, Ricci was expelled from Chao-k'ing in 1589 by a
viceroy of Canton who had found the house of the missionaries
suited to his own needs; but the mission had taken root too
deeply to be exterminated by the ruin of its first home.
Thenceforth in whatever town Ricci sought a new field of
apostolate he was preceded by his reputation and he found
powerful friends to protect him. He first went to Shao-chow,
also in the province of Canton, where he dispensed with the
services of interpreters and adopted the costume of the educated
Chinese. In 1595 he made an attempt on Nan-king, the famous
capital in the south of China, and, though unsuccessful, it
furnished him with an opportunity of forming a Christian Church
at Nan-ch'ang, capital of Kiang-si, which was so famous for the
number and learning of its educated men. In 1598 he made a bold
but equally fruitless attempt to establish himself at Peking.
Forced to return to Nan-king on 6 Feb., 1599, he found
Providential compensation there; the situation had changed
completely since the preceding year, and the highest mandarins
were desirous of seeing the holy doctor from the West take up
his abode in their city. Although his zeal was rewarded with
much success in this wider field, he constantly longed to repair
his repulse at Peking. He felt that the mission was not secure
in the provinces until it was established and authorized in the
capital. On 18 May, 1600, Ricci again set out for Peking and,
when all human hope of success was lost, he entered on 24
January, 1601, summoned by Emperor Wan-li.
Last Labours
Ricci's last nine years were spent at Peking, strengthening his
work with the same wisdom and tenacity of purpose which had
conducted it so far. The imperial goodwill was gained by gifts
of European curiosities, especially the map of the world, from
which the Asiatic ruler learned for the first time the true
situation of his empire and the existence of so many other
different kingdoms and peoples; he required Father Ricci to make
a copy of it for him in his palace. At Peking, as at Nan-king
and elsewhere, the interest of the most intelligent Chinese was
aroused chiefly by the revelations which the European teacher
made to them in the domain of the sciences, even those in which
they considered themselves most proficient. Mathematics and
astronomy, for example, had from time immemorial formed a part
of the institutions of the Chinese Government, but, when they
listened to Father Ricci, even the men who knew most had to
acknowledge how small and how mingled with errors was their
knowledge. But this recognition of their ignorance and their
esteem for European learning, of which they had just got a
glimpse, impelled very few Chinese to make serious efforts to
acquire this knowledge, their attachment to tradition or the
routine of national teaching being too deep-rooted. However, the
Chinese governors, who even at the present day have made no
attempt at reform in this matter, did not wish to deprive the
country of all the advantages of European discoveries. To
procure them recourse had to be had to the missionaries, and
thus the Chinese mission from Ricci's time until the end of the
eighteenth century found its chief protection in the services
performed with the assistance of European learning. Father Ricci
made use of profane science only to prepare the ground and open
the way to the apostolate properly so called. With this object
in view he employed other means, which made a deep impression on
the majority of the educated class, and especially on those who
held public offices. He composed under various forms adapted to
the Chinese taste little moral treatises, e.g., that called by
the Chinese "The Twenty-five Words", because in twenty-five
short chapters it treated "of the mortification of the passions
and the nobility of virtue". Still greater admiration was
aroused by the "Paradoxes", a collection of practical sentences,
useful to a moral life, familiar to Christians but new to the
Chinese, which Ricci developed with accounts of examples,
comparisons, and extracts from the Scriptures and from Christian
philosophers and doctors. Not unreasonably proud of their rich
moral literature, the Chinese were greatly surprised to see a
stranger succeed so well; they could not refrain from praising
his exalted doctrine, and the respect which they soon acquired
for the Christian writings did much to dissipate their distrust
of strangers and to render them kindly disposed towards the
Christian religion.
But the book through which Ricci exercised the widest and most
fortunate influence was his "T'ien-chu-she-i" (The True Doctrine
of God). This was the little catechism of Chao-k'ing which had
been delivered from day to day, corrected and improved as
occasion offered, until it finally contained all the matter
suggested by long years of experience in the apostolate. The
truths which must be admitted as the necessary preliminary to
faith -- the existence and unity of God, the creation, the
immortality of the soul, reward or punishment in a future life
-- are here demonstrated by the best arguments from reason,
while the errors most widespread in China, especially the
worship of idols and the belief in the transmigration of souls,
are successfully refuted. To the testimony furnished by
Christian philosophy and theology Ricci added numerous proofs
from the ancient Chinese books which did much to win credit for
his work. A masterpiece of apologetics and controversy, the
"T'ien-chu-she-i", rightfully became the manual of the
missionaries and did most effacacious missionary work. Before
its author's death it had been reprinted at least four times,
and twice by the pagans. It led countless numbers to
Christianity, and aroused esteem for our religion in those
readers whom it did not convert. The perusal of it induced
Emperor K'ang-hi to issue his edict of 1692 granting liberty to
preach the Gospel. The Emperor Kien-long, although he persecuted
the Christians, ordered the "T'ien-chu-she-i" to be placed in
his library with his collection of the most notable productions
of the Chinese language. Even to the present time missionaries
have experienced its beneficent influence, which was not
confined to China, being felt also in Japan, Tong-king, and
other countries tributary to Chinese literature.
Besides the works intended especially for the infidels and the
catechumens whose initiation was in progress, Father Ricci wrote
others for the new Christians. As founder of the mission he had
to invent formulae capable of expressing clearly and
unequivocally our dogmas and rites in a language which had
hitherto never been put to such use (except for the Nestorian
use, with which Ricci was not acquainted). It was a delicate and
difficult task, but it formed only a part of the heavy burden
which the direction of the mission was for Father Ricci,
particularly during his last years. While advancing gradually on
the capital Ricci did not abandon the territory already
conquered; he trained in his methods the fellow-workers who
joined him and commissioned them to continue his work in the
cities he left. Thus in 1601, the mission included, besides
Peking, the three residences of Nan-king, Nan-ch'ang, Shao-chow,
to which was added in 1608 that of Shang-hai. In each of these
there were two or three missionaries with "brothers", Chinese
Christians from Macao who had been received into the Society of
Jesus, and who served the mission as catechists. Although as yet
the number of Christians was not very great (2000 baptized in
1608), Father Ricci in his "Memoirs" has said well that
considering the obstacles to the entrance of Christianity into
China the result was "a very great miracle of Divine
Omnipotence". To preserve and increase the success already
obtained, it was necessary that the means which had already
proved efficacious should continue to be employed; everywhere
and always the missionaries, without neglecting the essential
duties of the Christian apostolate, had to adapt their methods
to the special conditions of the country, and avoid unnecessary
attacks on traditional customs and habits. The application of
this undeniably sound policy was often difficult. In answer to
the doubts of his fellow-workers Father Ricci outlined rules,
which received the approval of Father Valignano; these insured
the unity and fruitful efficacy of the apostolic work throughout
the mission.
Question of the Divine Names and the Chinese Rites
The most difficult problem in the evangelization of China had to
do with the rites or ceremonies, in use from time immemorial, to
do honour to ancestors or deceased relatives and the particular
tokens of respect which the educated felt bound to pay to their
master, Confucius. Ricci's solution of this problem caused a
long and heated controversy in which the Holy See finally
decided against him. The discussion also dealt with the use of
the Chinese terms T'ien (heaven) and Shang-ti (Sovereign Lord)
to designate God; here also the custom established by Father
Ricci had to be corrected. The following is a short history of
this famous controversy which was singularly complicated and
embittered by passion. With regard to the designations for God,
Ricci always preferred, and employed from the first, the term
T'ien chu (Lord of Heaven) for the God of Christians; as had
been seen, he used it in the title of his catechism. But in
studying the most ancient Chinese books he considered it
established that they said of T'ien (Heaven) and Shang-ti
(Sovereign Lord) what we say of the true God, that is, they
described under these two names a sovereign lord of spirits and
men who knows all that takes place in the world, the source of
all power and all lawful authority, the supreme regulator and
defender of the moral law, rewarding those who observe and
punishing those who violate it. Hence he concluded that, in the
most revered monuments of China, T'ien and Shang'ti designate
nothing else than the true God whom he himself preached. Ricci
maintained this opinion in several passages of his
T'ien-chu-she-i; it will be readily understood of what
assistance it was to destroy Chinese prejudices against the
Christian religion. It is true that, in drawing this conclusion,
Ricci had to contradict the common interpretation of modern
scholars who follow Chu-Hi in referring T'ien and Shang-ti to
apply to the material heaven; but he showed that this material
interpretation does not do justice to the texts and it is at
least reasonable to see in them something better. In fact he
informs us that the educated Confucianists, who did not adore
idols, were grateful to him for interpreting the words of their
master with such goodwill. Indeed, Ricci's opinion has been
adopted and confirmed by illustrious modern Sinologists, amongst
whom it suffices to mention James Legge ("The Notions of the
Chinese concerning God and Spirits", 1852; "A Letter to Prof.
Max Muller chiefly on the Translation of the Chinese terms Ti
and Chang-ti", 1880).
Therefore it was not without serious grounds that the founder of
the Chinese mission and his successors believed themselves
justified in employing the terms T'ien and Shang-ti as well as
T'ien-chu to designate the true God. However, there were
objections to this practice even among the Jesuits, the earliest
rising shortly after the death of Father Ricci and being
formulated by the Japanese Jesuits. In the ensuing discussion
carried on in various writings for and against, which did not
circulate beyond the circle of the missionaries only one of
those working in China declared himself against the use of the
name Shang-ti. This was Father Nicholas Longobardi, Ricci's
successor as superior general of the mission, who, however, did
not depart in anything from the lines laid down by its founder.
After allowing the question to be discussed for some years, the
superior ordered the missionaries to abide simply by the custom
of Father Ricci; later this custom together with the rites was
submitted to the judgment of the Holy See. In 1704 and 1715
Clement XI, without pronouncing as to the meaning of T'ien and
Shang-ti in the ancient Chinese books, forbade, as being open to
misconstruction, the use of these names to indicate the true
God, and permitted only the T'ien-chu. Regarding the rites and
ceremonies in honour of ancestors and Confucius, Father Ricci
was also of the opinion that a broad toleration was permissible
without injury to the purity of the Christian religion.
Moreover, the question was of the utmost importance for the
progress of the apostolate. To honour their ancestors and
deceased parents by traditional prostrations and sacrifices was
in the eyes of the Chinese the gravest duty of filial piety, and
one who neglected it was treated by all his relatives as an
unworthy member of his family and nation. Similar ceremonies in
honour of Confucius were an indispensable obligation for
scholars, so that they could not receive any literary degree nor
claim any public office without having fulfilled it. This law
still remains inviolable; Kiang-hi, the emperor who showed most
goodwill towards the Christians, always refused to set it aside
in their favour. In modern times the Chinese Government showed
no more favour to the ministers of France, who, in the name of
the treaties guaranteeing the liberty of Catholicism in China,
claimed for the Christians who had passed the examinations, the
titles and advantages of the corresponding degrees without the
necessity of going through the ceremonies; the Court of Peking
invariably replied that this was a question of national
tradition on which it was impossible to compromise.
After having carefully studied what the Chinese classical books
said regarding these rites, and after having observed for a long
time the practice of them and questioned numerous scholars of
every rank with whom he was associated during this eighteen
years of apostolate, Ricci was convinced that these rites had no
religious significance, either in their institution or in their
practice by the enlightened classes. The Chinese, he said,
recognized no divinity in Confucius any more than in their
deceased ancestors; they prayed to neither; the made no requests
nor expected any extraordinary intervention from them. In fact
they only did for them what they did for the living to whom they
wished to show great respect. "The honour they pay to their
parents consists in serving them dead as they did living. They
do not for this reason think that the dead come to eat their
offerings [the flesh, fruit, etc.] or need them. They declare
that they act in this manner because they know no other way of
showing their love and gratitude to their ancestors. . . .
Likewise what they do [especially the educated], they do to
thank Confucius for the excellent doctrine which he left them in
his books, and through which they obtained their degrees and
mandarinships. Thus in all this there is nothing suggestive of
idolatry, and perhaps it may even be said that there is no
superstition." The "perhaps" added to the last part of this
conclusion shows the conscientiousness with which the founder
acted in this matter. That the vulgar and indeed even most of
the Chinese pagans mingled superstition with their national
rites Ricci never denied; neither did he overlook the fact that
the Chinese, like infidels in general, mixed superstition with
their most legitimate actions. In such cases superstition is
only an accident which does not corrupt the substance of the
just action itself, and Ricci thought this applied also to the
rites. Consequently he allowed the new Christians to continue
the practice of them avoiding everything suggestive of
superstition, and he gave them rules to assist them to
discriminate. He believed, however, that this tolerance, though
licit, should be limited by the necessity of the case; whenever
the Chinese Christian community should enjoy sufficient liberty,
its customs, notably its manner of honouring the dead, must be
brought into conformity with the customs of the rest of the
Christian world. These principles of Father Ricci, controlled by
his fellow-workers during his lifetime, and after his death,
served for fifty years as the guide of all the missionaries.
In 1631 the first mission of the Dominicans was founded at
Fu-kien by two Spanish religious; in 1633 two Franciscans, also
Spanish, came to establish a mission of their order. The new
missionaries were soon alarmed by the attacks on the purity of
religion which they thought they discerned in the communities
founded by their predecessors. Without taking sufficient time
perhaps to become acquainted with Chinese matters and to learn
exactly what was done in the Jesuit missions they sent a
denunciation to the bishops of the Philippines. The bishops
referred it to Pope Urban VIII (1635), and soon the public was
informed. As early as 1638 a controversy began in the
Philippines between the Jesuits in defence of their brethren on
the one side and the Dominicans and Franciscans on the other. In
1643 one of the chief accusers, the Dominican, Jean-Baptiste
Moralez, went to Rome to submit to the Holy See a series of
"questions" or "doubts" which he said were controverted between
the Jesuit missionaries and their rivals. Ten of these questions
concerned the participation of Christians in the rites in honour
of Confucius and the dead. Moralez's petition tended to show
that the cases on which he requested the decision of the Holy
See represented the practice authorized by the Society of Jesus;
as soon as the Jesuits learned of this they declared that these
cases were imaginary and that they had never allowed the
Christians to take part in the rites as set forth by Moralez. In
declaring the ceremonies illicit in its Decree of 12 Sept., 1645
(approved by Innocent X), the congregation of the Propaganda
gave the only possible reply to the questions referred to it.
In 1651 Father Martin Martini (author of the "Novus Atlas
Sienensis") was sent from China to Rome by his brethren to give
a true account of the Jesuits practices and permissions with
regard to the Chinese rites. This delegate reached the Eternal
City in 1654, and in 1655 submitted four questions to the Sacred
Congregation of the Holy Office. This supreme tribunal, in its
Decree of 23 March, 1656, approved by Pope Alexander VII,
sanctioned the practice of Ricci and his associates as set forth
by Father Martini, declaring that the ceremonies in honour of
Confucius and ancestors appeared to constitute "a purely civil
and political cult". Did this decree annul that of 1645?
Concerning this question, laid before the Holy Office by the
Dominican, Father John de Polanco, the reply was (20 Nov., 1669)
that both decrees should remain "in their full force" and should
be observed "according to the questions, circumstances, and
everything contained in the proposed doubts".
Meanwhile an understanding was reached by the hitherto divided
missionaries. This reconciliation was hastened by the
persecution of 1665 which assembled for nearly five years in the
same house at Canton nineteen Jesuits, three Dominicans, and one
Franciscan (then the sole member of his order in China).
Profiting by their enforced leisure to agree on a uniform
Apostolic method, the missionaries discussed all the points on
which the discipline of the Church should be adapted to the
exigencies of the Chinese situation. After forty days of
conferences, which terminated on 26 Jan., 1668, all (with the
possible exception of the Franciscan Antonio de Santa Maria, who
was very zealous but extremely uncompromising) subscribed to
forty-two articles, the result of the deliberations, of which
the forty-first was as follows: "As to the ceremonies by which
the Chinese honour their master Confucius and the dead, the
replies of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition approved
by our Holy Father Alexander VII, in 1656, must be followed
absolutely because they are based on a very probable opinion, to
which it is impossible to offset any evidence to the contrary,
and, this probability assumed, the door of salvation must not be
closed to the innumerable Chinese who would stray from the
Christian religion if they were forbidden to what they may do
licitly and in good faith and which they cannot forego without
serious injury." After the subscription, however, a new
courteous discussion of this article in writing took place
between Father Domingo Fernandez Navarrete, superior of the
Dominicans, and the most learned of the Jesuits at Canton.
Navarrette finally appeared satisfied and on 29 Sept., 1669,
submitted his written acceptance of the article to the superior
of the Jesuits. However, on 19 Dec. of this year he secretly
left Canton for Macao whence he went to Europe. There, and
especially at Rome where he was in 1673, he sought from now on
only to overthrow what had been attempted in the conferences of
Canton. He published the "Tratados historicos, politicos,
ethicos, y religiosos de la monarchia de China" (I, Madrid,
1673; of vol. II, printed in 1679 and incomplete, only two
copies are known). This work is filled with impassioned
accusations against the Jesuit missionaries regarding their
methods of apostolate and especially their toleration of the
rites. Nevertheless, Naverrette did not succeed in inducing the
Holy See to resume the question, this being reserved for Charles
Maigrot, a member of the new Societe des Missions Etrangeres.
Maigrot went to China in 1683. He was Vicar Apostolic of
Fu-kien, before being as yet a bishop, when, on 26 March, 1693,
he addressed to the missionaries of his vicariate a mandate
proscribing the names T'ien and Shang-ti; forbidding that
Christians be allowed to participate in or assist at "sacrifices
or solemn oblations" in honour of Confucius or the dead;
prescribing modifications of the inscriptions on the ancestral
tablets; censuring and forbidding certain, according to him, too
favourable references to the ancient Chinese philosophers; and,
last but not least, declaring that the exposition made by Father
Martini was not true and that consequently the approval which
the latter had received from Rome was not to be relied on.
By order of Innocent XII, the Holy Office resumed in 1697 the
study of the question on the documents furnished by the
procurators of Mgr Maigrot and on those showing the opposite
side brought by the representatives of the Jesuit missionaries.
It is worthy of note that at this period a number of the
missionaries outside the Society of Jesus, especially all the
Augustinians, nearly all the Franciscans, and some Dominicans,
were converted to the practice of Ricci and the Jesuit
missionaries. The difficulty of grasping the truth amid such
different representations of facts and contradictory
interpretations of texts prevented the Congregation from
reaching a decision until towards the end of 1704 under the
pontificate of Clement XI. Long before then the pope had chosen
and sent to the Far East a legate to secure the execution of the
Apostolic decrees and to regulate all other questions on the
welfare of the missions. The prelate chosen was
Charles-Thomas-Maillard de Tournon (b. at Turin) whom Clement XI
had consecrated with his own hands on 27 Dec., 1701, and on whom
he conferred the title of Patriarch of Antioch. Leaving Europe
on 9 Feb., 1703, Mgr de Tournon stayed for a time in India (see
MALABAR RITES) reaching Macao on 2 April, 1705, and Peking on 4
December of the same year. Emperor K'ang-hi accorded him a warm
welcome and treated him with much honour until he learned,
perhaps through the imprudence of the legate himself, that one
of the objects of his embassy, if not the chief, was to abolish
the rites amongst the Christians. Mgr de Tournon was already
aware that the decision against the rites had been given since
20 Nov., 1704, but not yet published in Europe, as the pope
wished that it should be published first in China. Forced to
leave Peking, the legate had returned to Nan-king when he
learned that the emperor had ordered all missionaries, under
penalty of expulsion, to come to him for a piao or diploma
granting permission to preach the Gospel. This diploma was to be
granted only to those who promised not to oppose the national
rites. On the receipt of this news the legate felt that he could
no longer postpone the announcement of the Roman decisions. By a
mandate of 15 January, 1707, he required all missionaries under
pain of excommunication to reply to Chinese authority, if it
questioned them, that "several things" in Chinese doctrine and
customs did not agree with Divine law and that these were
chiefly "the sacrifices to Confucius and ancestors" and "the use
of ancestral tablets", moreover that Shang-ti and "T'ien" were
not "the true God of the Christians". When the emperor learned
of this Decree he ordered Mgr de Tournon to be brought to Macao
and forbade him to leave there before the return of the envoys
whom he himself sent to the pope to explain his objections to
the interdiction of the rites. While still subject to this
restraint, the legate died in 1710.
Meanwhile Mgr Maigrot and several other missionaries having
refused to ask for the piao had been expelled from China. But
the majority (i.e. all the Jesuits, most of the Franciscans, and
other missionary religious, having at their head the Bishop of
Peking, a Franciscan, and the Bishop of Ascalon, Vicar Apostolic
of Kiang-si, an Augustinian) considered that, to prevent the
total ruin of the mission, they might postpone obedience to the
legate until the pope should have signified his will. Clement XI
replied by publishing (March, 1709) the answers of the Holy
Office, which he had already approved on 20 November, 1704, and
then by causing the same Congregation to issue (25 Sept., 1710)
a new Decree which approved the acts of the legate and ordered
the observance of the mandate of Nan-king, but interpreted in
the sense of the Roman replies of 1704, omitting all the
questions and most of the preambles, and concluded with a form
of oath which the pope enjoined on all the missionaries and
which obliged them under the severest penalties to observe and
have observed fully and without reserve the decisions inserted
in the pontifical act. This Constitution, which reached China in
1716, found no rebels among the missionaries, but even those who
sought most zealously failed to induce the majority of their
flock to observe its provisions. At the same time the hate of
the pagans was reawakened, enkindled by the old charge that
Christianity was the enemy of the national rites, and the
neophytes began to be the objects of persecutions to which
K'ang-hi, hitherto so well-disposed, now gave almost entire
liberty. Clement XI sought to remedy this critical situation by
sending to China a second legate, John-Ambrose Mezzabarba, whom
he named Patriarch of Alexandria. This prelate sailed from
Lisbon on 25 March, 1720, reaching Macao on 26 September, and
Canton on 12 October. Admitted, not without difficulty, to
Peking and to an audience with the emperor, the legate could
only prevent his immediate dismissal and the expulsion of all
the missionaries by making known some alleviations of the
Constitution "Ex illa die", which he was authorized to offer,
and allowing K'ang-hi to hope that the pope would grant still
others. Then he hastened to return to Macao, whence he addressed
(4 November, 1721) a pastoral letter to the missionaries of
China, communicating to them the authentic text of his eight
"permissions" relating to the rites. He declared that he would
permit nothing forbidden by the Constitution; in practice,
however, his concessions relaxed the rigour of the pontifical
interdictions, although they did not produce harmony or unity of
action among the apostolic workers. To bring about this highly
desirable result the pope ordered a new investigation, the chief
object of which was the legitimacy and opportuneness of
Mezzabarba's "permissions"; begun by the Holy Office under
Clement XII a conclusion was reached only under Benedict XIV. On
11 July, 1742, this pope, by the Bull "Ex quo singulari",
confirmed and reimposed in a most emphatic manner the
Constitution "Ex illa die", and condemned and annulled the
"permissions" of Mezzabarba as authorizing the superstitions
which that Constitution sought to destroy. This action
terminated the controversy among Catholics.
The Holy See did not touch on the purely theoretical questions,
as for instance what the Chinese rites were and signified
according to their institution and in ancient times. In this
Father Ricci may have been right; but he was mistaken in
thinking that as practised in modern times they are not
superstitious or can be made free from all superstition. The
popes declared, after scrupulous investigations, that the
ceremonies in honour of Confucius or ancestors and deceased
relatives are tainted with superstition to such a degree that
they cannot be purified. But the error of Ricci, as of his
fellow-workers and successors, was but an error in judgment. The
Holy See expressly forbade it to be said that they approved of
idolatry; it would indeed be an odious calumny to accuse such a
man as Ricci, and so many other holy and zealous missionaries,
of having approved and permitted their neophytes practices which
they knew to be superstitions and contrary to the purity of
religion. Despite this error, Matto Ricci remains a splendid
type of missionary and founder, unsurpassed for his zealous
intrepidity, the intelligence of the methods applied to each
situation, and the unwearying tenacity with which he pursued the
projects he undertook. To him belongs the glory not only of
opening up a vast empire to the Gospel, but of simultaneously
making the first breach in that distrust of strangers which
excluded China from the general progress of the world. The
establishment of the Catholic mission in the heart of this
country also had its economic consequences: it laid the
foundation of a better understanding between the Far East and
the West, which grew with the progress of the mission. It is
superfluous to detail the results from the standpoint of the
material interests of the whole world. Lastly, science owes to
Father Ricci the first exact scientific knowledge received in
Europe concerning China, its true geographical situation, its
ancient civilization, its vast and curious literature, its
social organization so different from what existed elsewhere.
The method instituted by Ricci necessitated a fundamental study
of this new world, and if the missionaries who have since
followed him have rendered scarcely less service to science than
to religion, a great part of the credit is due to Ricci.
[MATTEO RICCI], "Dell' entrata della Campagnia di Giesu e
christianita nella Cina" (MS. Of Father Ricci, extant in the
archives of the Society of Jesus; cited in the foregoing article
as the "Memmoirs of Father Ricci", a somewhat free tr. Of his
work is given in TRIGAULT, "De christiana expeditione apud Sinas
suscepta ab Societate Jesu". "Ex P. Matthaei Ricci commentariis
libri", V (Augsbrg, 1615); DE URSIS, "P. Matheus Ricci, S.J.
Relacao escripta pelo seu companhiero" (Rome, 1910); BARTOLI,
"Dell' Historia della Compagnia di Gesu. La Cina", I-II (Rome,
1663). Bartoli is the most accurate biographer of Ricci;
d'ORLEANS, "La vie du Pere Matthieu Ricci" (Paris, 1693);
NATALI, "Il secondo Confucio" (Rome, 1900); VENTURI,
"L'apostolato del P. M. Ricci d. C. d. G. in Cina secondo I suoi
scritti inediti" (Rome, 1910); BRUCKER, "Le Pere Matthieu Ricci"
in "Etudes", CXXIV (Paris, 1910), 5-27; 185-208; 751-79; DE
BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, "Bibl. Des ecrivains de la C. de J", VI,
1792-95). Chinese Rites.-BRUCKER in VACANT, "Dict. De Theol.
cath., s.v. "Chinois (Rites"" and works indicated; CORDIER,
"Bibl. Sinica", II, 2nd. Ed., 869-925; IDEM, "Hist. Des
relations de la Chine avec les puissances occidentales", III
(Paris, 1902) xxv.
JOSEPH BRUCKER
Giovanni Battista Riccioli
Giovanni Battista Riccioli
Italian astronomer, b. at Ferrara 17 April, 1598; d. at Bologna
25 June, 1671. He entered the Society of Jesus 6 Oct., 1614.
After teaching philosophy and theology for a number of years,
chiefly at Parma and Bologna, he devoted himself, at the request
of his superiors, entirely to the study of astronomy, which at
that time, owing to the discoveries of Kepler and the new
theories of Copernicus, was a subject of much discussion.
Realizing the many defects of the traditional astronomy
inherited from the ancients, he conceived the bold idea of
undertaking a reconstruction of the science with a view to
bringing it into harmony with contemporary progress. This led to
his "Almagestum novum, astronomiam veterem novamque complectens"
(2 vols., Bologna, 1651), considered by many the most important
literary work of the Jesuits during the seventeenth century. The
author in common with many scholars of the time, notably in
Italy, rejected the Copernican theory, and in this work,
admittedly of great erudition, gives an elaborate refutation in
justification of the Roman Decrees of 1616 and 1633. He praises,
however, the genius of Copernicus and readily admits the value
of his system as a simple hypothesis. His sincerity in this
connexion has been called into question by some, e.g. Wolf, but
a study of the work shows beyond doubt that he wrote from
conviction and with the desire of making known the truth.
Riccioli's project also included a comparison of the unit of
length of various nations and a more exact determination of the
dimensions of the earth. His topographical measurements occupied
him at intervals between 1644 and 1656, but defects of method
have rendered his results of but little value. His most
important contribution to astronomy was perhaps his detailed
telescopic study of the moon, made in collaboration with P.
Grimaldi. The latter's excellent lunar map was inserted in the
"Almagestum novum", and the lunar nomenclature they adopted is
still in use. He also made observations on Saturn's rings,
though it was reserved for Huyghens to determine the true
ring-structure. He was an ardent defender of the new Gregorian
calendar. Though of delicate health, Riccioli was an
indefatigable worker and, in spite of his opposition to the
Copernican theory, rendered valuable services to astronomy and
also to geography and chronology. His chief works are:
"Geographiae et hydrographiae reformatae libri XII" (Bologna,
1661); "Astronomia reformata" (2 vols., Bologna, 1665);
"Chronologia reformata" (1669); "Tabula latitudinum et
longitudinum" (Vienna, 1689).
SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., VI (Paris, 1895), 1795;
DELAMBRE, Hist. de l'Astronomie Moderne, II (Paris, 1821), 274;
WOLF, Gesch. d. Astronomie (Munich, 1877), 434; WALSH, Catholic
Churchmen in Science (2nd series, Philadelphia, 1909);
LINSMEIER, Natur. u. Offenbarung, XLVII, 65 sqq.
H. M. BROCK
Edmund Ignatius Rice
Edmund Ignatius Rice
Founder of the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian
Schools (better known as "Irish Christian Brothers"), b. at
Callan, Co. Kilkenny, 1762; d. at Waterford, 1844. He was
educated in a Catholic school which, despite the provision of
the iniquitous penal laws, the authorities suffered to exist in
the City of Kilkenny. In 1779 he entered the business house of
his uncle, a large export and import trader in the City of
Waterford, and, after the latter's death, became sole
proprietor. As a citizen he was distinguished for his probity,
charity, and piety; he was an active member of a society
established in the city for the relief of the poor. About 1794
he meditated entering a continental convent, but his brother, an
Augustinian who had but just returned from Rome, discountenanced
the idea. Rice, thereupon, devoted himself to the extension of
his business. Some years later, however, he again desired to
become a religious. As he was discussing the matter with a
friend of his, a sister of Bishop Power of Waterford, a band of
ragged boys passed by. Pointing to them Miss Power exclaimed:
"What! would you bury yourself in a cell on the continent rather
than devote your wealth and your life to the spiritual and
material interest of these poor youths?" The words were an
inspiration. Rice related the incident to Dr. Lanigan, bishop of
his native Diocese of Ossory, and to others, all of whom advised
him to undertake the mission to which God was evidently calling
him. Rice settled his worldly affairs, his last year's business
(1800) being the most lucrative one he had known, and commenced
the work of the Christian schools.
Assisted by two young men, whom he paid for their services, he
opened his fist school in Waterford in 1802. In June of this
year Bishop Hussey of Waterford laid the foundation stone of a
schoolhouse on a site which he named Mount Sion. The building
was soon ready for occupation, but Rice's assistants had fled
and could not be induced to return even when offered higher
salaries. In this extremity two young men from Callan offered
themselves as fellow-labourers. Other workers soon gathered
round him, and by 1806 Christian schools were established in
Waterford, Carrick-on-Suir, and Dungarvan. The communities
adopted a modified form of the Rule of the Presentation order of
nuns, and, in 1808, pronounced their vows before Bishop Power.
Houses were established in Cork, Dublin, Limerick, and
elsewhere. Though the brothers, as a rule, made their novitiate
in Mount Sion and regarded Rice as their father and model, he
was not their superior; they were subject to the bishops of
their respective dioceses. In 1817, on the advice of Bishop
Murray, coadjutor to the Archbishop of Dublin, and of Father
Kenny, S.J., a special friend, Rice applied to the Holy See for
approbation and a constitution for his society. In 1820 Pius VII
formally confirmed the new congregation of "Fratres Monachi" by
the Brief "Ad pastoralis dignitatis fastigium". This was the
first confirmation by the Church of a congregation of religious
men in Ireland. Brother Rice was unanimously elected superior
general by the members. All the houses were united except the
house in Cork, where Bishop Murphy refused his consent. Later,
however, in 1826, the Brothers in Cork attained the object of
their desire, but one of their number, preferring the old
condition of things, offered his services to the bishop, who
placed him in charge of a school on the south side of the city.
This secession of Br. Austin Reardon was the origin of the
teaching congregation of the Presentation Brothers. The
confirmation of the new Institute attracted considerable
attention, even outside of Ireland, and many presented
themselves for the novitiate. The founder removed the seat of
government to Dublin.
At this time the agitation for Catholic Emancipation was at its
height and the people were roused to indignation by the reports
of the proselytizing practices carried on in the Government
schools. Brother Rice conceived the idea of establishing a
"Catholic Model School". The "Liberator" entered warmly into his
scheme, and procured a grant of -L-1500 from the Catholic
Association in aid of the proposed building. On St. Columba's
day, 1828, Daniel O'Connell laid the foundation stone, in North
Richmond Street, Dublin, of the famous school, since known as
the "O'Connell Schools". In his speech on the occasion he
referred to Brother Rice as "My old friend, Mr. Rice, the
Patriarch of the Monks of the west". The founder resigned his
office in 1838 and spent his remaining years in Mount Sion.
Before his death he saw eleven communities of his institute in
Ireland, eleven in England, and one in Sydney, Australia, while
applications for foundations had been received from the
Archbishop of Baltimore and from bishops in Canada,
Newfoundland, and other places.
PATRICK J. HENNESSY
Richard (Franciscan Preacher)
Richard
A Friar minor and preacher, appearing in history between 1428
and 1431, whose origin and nationality are unknown. He is
sometimes called the disciple of St. Bernardine of Sienna and of
St. Vincent Ferrer, but probably only because, like the former,
he promoted the veneration of the Holy Name of Jesus and, like
the latter, announced the end of the world as near. In 1428
Richard came from the Holy Land to France, preached at Troyes,
next year in Paris during ten days (16-26 April) every morning
from about five o'clock to ten or eleven. He had such a sway
over his numerous auditors that after his sermons the men burned
their dice, and the women their vanities. Having been threatened
by the Faculty of Theology on account of his doctrine --
perhaps, also, because he was believed to favour Charles VII,
King of France, whilst Paris was then in the hands of the
English -- he left Paris suddenly and betook himself to Orleans
and Troyes. In the latter town he first met Bl. Joan of Arc.
Having contributed much to the submission of Troyes to Charles
VII, Richard now followed the French army and became confessor
and chaplain to Bl. Joan. Some differences, however, arose
between the two on account of Catherine de la Rochelle, who was
protected by the friar, but scorned by Joan. Richard's name
figures also in the proceedings against Bl. Joan of Arc in 1431;
in the same year he preached the Lent in Orleans and shortly
after was interdicted from preaching by the inquisitor of
Poitiers. No trace of him is found after this.
DE KERVAL, Jeanne d'Arc et les Franciscains (Vanves, 1893);
DEBOUT, Jeanne d'Arc (Paris, 1905-07), I, 694-97 and passim;
WALLON, Jeanne d'Arc (Paris, 1883), 125, 200, 261.
LIVARIUS OLIGER
Richard I, King of England
Richard I, King Of England
Richard I, born at Oxford, 6 Sept, 1157; died at Chaluz, France,
6 April, 1199; was known to the minstrels of a later age, rather
than to his contemporaries, as "Coeur-de-Lion". He was only the
second son of Henry II, but it was part of his father's policy,
holding, as he did, continental dominions of great extent and
little mutual cohesion, to assign them to his children during
his own lifetime and even to have his sons brought up among the
people they were destined to govern. To Richard were allotted
the territories in the South of France belonging to his mother
Eleanor of Aquitaine, and before he was sixteen he was inducted
as Duke of that province. It was a weak point in the old King's
management of his sons, that, while dazzling them with brilliant
prospects, he invested them with very little of the substance of
power. In 1173 the young Henry, who, following a German usage,
had already been crowned king in the lifetime of his father,
broke out into open revolt, being instigated thereto by his
father-in-law, Louis VII, King of France. Under the influence of
their mother Eleanor, who bitterly resented her husband's
infidelities, Geoffrey and Richard in 1173 also threw in their
lot with the rebel and took up arms against their father. Allies
gathered round them and the situation grew so threatening, that
Henry II thought it well to propitiate heaven by doing penance
at the tomb of the martyred Archbishop St. Thomas (11 July,
1174). By a remarkable coincidence, on the very next day, a
victory in Northumberland over William, King of Scotland,
disposed of Henry's most formidable opponent. Returning with a
large force to France, the King swept all before him, and though
Richard for a while held out alone he was compelled by 21 Sept.
to sue for forgiveness at his father's feet.
The King dealt leniently with his rebellious children, but this
first outbreak was only the harbinger of an almost uninterrupted
series of disloyal intrigues, fomented by Louis VII and by his
son and successor, Philip Augustus, in which Richard, who lived
almost entirely in Guienne and Poitou, was engaged down to the
time of his father's death. He acquired for himself a great and
deserved reputation for knightly prowess, and he was often
concerned in chivalrous exploits, showing much energy in
particular in protecting the pilgrims who passed through his own
and adjacent territories on their way to the shrine of St. James
of Compostella. His elder brother Henry grew jealous of him and
insisted that Richard should do him homage. On the latter's
resistance war broke out between the brothers. Bertrand de Born,
Count of Hautefort, who was Richard's rival in minstrelsy as
well as in feats of arms, lent such powerful support to the
younger Henry, that the old King had to intervene on Richard's
side. The death of the younger Henry, 11 June, 1183, once more
restored peace and made Richard heir to the throne. But other
quarrels followed between Richard and his father, and it was in
the heat of the most desperate of these, in which the astuteness
of Philip Augustus had contrived to implicate Henry's favourite
son John, that the old King died broken-hearted, 6 July, 1189.
Despite the constant hostilities of the last few years, Richard
secured the succession without difficulty. He came quickly to
England and was crowned at Westminster on 3 Sept. But his object
in visiting his native land was less to provide for the
government of the kingdom than to collect resources for the
projected Crusade which now appealed to the strongest, if not
the best, instincts of his adventurous nature, and by the
success of which he hoped to startle the world. Already, towards
the end of 1187, when the news had reached him of Saladin's
conquest of Jerusalem, Richard had taken the cross. Philip
Augustus and Henry II had subsequently followed his example, but
the quarrels which had supervened had so far prevented the
realization of this pious design. Now that he was more free the
young King seems to have been conscientiously in earnest in
putting the recovery of the Holy Land before everything else.
Though the expedients by which he set to work to gather every
penny of ready money upon which he could lay hands were alike
unscrupulous and impolitic, there is something which commands
respect in the energy which he threw into the task. He sold
sheriffdoms, justiceships, church lands, and appointments of all
kinds, both lay and secular, practically to the highest bidder.
He was not ungenerous in providing for his brothers John and
Geoffrey, and he showed a certain prudence in exacting a promise
from them to remain out of England for three years, in order to
leave a free hand to the new Chancellor William of Longehamp,
who was to govern England in his absence. Unfortunately he took
with him many of the men, e. g. Archbishop Baldwin, Hubert
Walter, and Ranulf Glanvill, whose statesmanship and experience
would have been most useful in governing England and left behind
many restless spirits like John himself and Longehamp, whose
energy might have been serviceable against the infidel.
Already on 11 Dec., 1189, Richard was ready to cross to Calais.
He met Philip Augustus, who was also to start on the Crusade,
and the two Kings swore to defend each other's dominions as they
would their own. The story of the Third Crusade has already been
told in some detail (see CRUSADES). It was September, 1190,
before Richard reached Marseilles; he pushed on to Messina and
waited for the spring. There miserable quarrels occurred with
Philip, whose sister he now refused to marry, and this trouble
was complicated by an interference in the affairs of Sicily,
which the Emperor Henry VI watched with a jealous eye, and which
later on was to cost Richard dear. Setting sail in March, he was
driven to Cyprus, where he quarrelled with Isaac Comnenus,
seized the island, and married Berengaria of Navarre. He at last
reached Acre in June and after prodigies of valour captured it.
Philip then returned to France but Richard made two desperate
efforts to reach Jerusalem, the first of which might have
succeeded had he known the panic and weakness of the foe.
Saladin was a worthy opponent, but terrible acts of cruelty as
well as of chivalry took place, notably when Richard slew his
Saracen prisoners in a fit of passion. In July, 1192, further
effort seemed hopeless, and the King of England's presence was
badly needed at home to secure his own dominions from the
treacherous intrigues of John. Hastening back Richard was
wrecked in the Adriatic, and falling eventually into the hands
of Leopold of Austria, he was sold to the Emperor Henry VI, who
kept him prisoner for over a year and extorted a portentous
ransom which England was racked to pay. Recent investigation has
shown that the motives of Henry's conduct were less vindictive
than political. Richard was induced to surrender England to the
Emperor (as John a few years later was to make over England to
the Holy See), and then Henry conferred the kingdom upon his
captive as a fief at the Diet of Mainz, in Feb., 1194 (see
Bloch, "Forschungen", Appendix IV). Despite the intrigues of
King Philip and John, Richard had loyal friends in England.
Hubert Walter had now reached home and worked energetically with
the Justices to raise the ransom, while Eleanor the Queen Mother
obtained from the Holy See an excommunication against his
captors. England responded nobly to the appeal for money and
Richard reached home in March, 1194.
He showed little gratitude to his native land, and after
spending less than two months there quitted it for his foreign
dominions never to return. Still, in Hubert Walter, who was now
both Archbishop of Canterbury and Justiciar, he left it a
capable governor. Hubert tried to wring unconstitutional
supplies and service from the impoverished barons and clergy,
but failed in at least one such demand before the resolute
opposition of St. Hugh of Lincoln. Richard's diplomatic
struggles and his campaigns against the wily King of France were
very costly but fairly successful. He would probably have
triumphed in the end, but a bolt from a cross-bow while he was
besieging the castle of Chaluz inflicted a mortal injury. He
died, after receiving the last sacraments with signs of sincere
repentance. In spite of his greed, his lack of principle, and,
on occasions, his ferocious savagery, Richard had many good
instincts. He thoroughly respected a man of fearless integrity
like St. Hugh of Lincoln, and Bishop Stubbs says of him with
justice that he was perhaps the most sincerely religious prince
of his family. "He heard Mass daily, and on three occasions did
penance in a very remarkable way, simply on the impulse of his
own distressed conscience. He never showed the brutal profanity
of John."
Lingard and all other standard Histories of England deal fully
with the reign and personal character of Richard. DAVIS, A
History of England in Six Volumes, II (2nd ed., London, 1909),
and ADAMS, The Political History of England. II (London, 1905),
may be specially recommended. The Prefaces contributed by Bishop
Stubbs to his editions of various Chronicles in the R. S. are
also very valuable, notably those to Roger of Hoveden (London,
1868-71); Ralph de Diceto (1875); and Benedict of Peterborough
(1867). Besides these should be mentioned in the same series the
two extremely important volumes of Chronicles and Memorials of
the Reign of Richard I (London, 1864-65), also edited by Stubbs;
the Magna Vita S. Hugonis, edited by Dimock, 1864; and Randulphi
de Coggeshall Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. Stevenson, 1875. See
also NORGATE, England under the Angevin Kings (London, 1889);
LUCRAIRE AND LAVISSE, Histoire de France (Paris, 1902); KNELLER,
Des Richard Loewenherz deutsche Gefangenshaft (Freiburg, 1893);
BLOCH, Forschungen zur Politik Kaisers Heinrich VI in den Jahren
1191-1194 (Berlin, 1892); KINDT, Gruende der Gefangenschaft
Richard I von England (Halle, 1892); and especially ROeHRICHT,
Gesch. d. Konigreich Jerusalem (Innsbruck, 1890).
HERBERT THURSTON.
Charles-Louis Richard
Charles-Louis Richard
Theologian and publicist; b. at Blainville-sur-l'Eau, in
Lorraine, April, 1711; d. at Mons, Belgium, 16 Aug., 1794. His
family, though of noble descent, was poor, and he received his
education in the schools of his native town. At the age of
sixteen he entered the Order of St. Dominic and, after his
religious profession, was sent to study theology in Paris, where
he received the Doctorate at the Sorbonne. He next applied
himself to preaching and the defense of religion against
d'Alembert, Voltaire, and their confederates. The outbreak of
the Revolution forced him to seek refuge at Mons, in Belgium.
During the second invasion of that country by the French, in
1794, old age prevented him from fleeing, and, though he eluded
his pursuers for some time, he was at last detected, tried by
court martial, and shot, as the author of "Parallele des Juifs
qui ont crucifie Jesus-Christ, avec les Franc,ais qui ont
execute leur roi" (Mons, 1794). Among his works may be mentioned
"Bibliotheque sacree, ou dictionnaire universelle des sciences
ecclesiastiques" (5 vols., Paris, 1760) and "Supplement" (Paris,
1765), the last and enlarged edition being that of Paris,
1821-27, 29 vols., and "Analyses des conciles generaux et
particuliers" (5 vols., Paris, 1772-77).
MOULAERT, Ch. L. Richard aus dem Predigerorden (Ratisbon, 1870);
Nomenclator, III (3rd ed.), 433-35.
H.J. SCHROEDER
Richard de Bury
Richard de Bury
Bishop and bibliophile, b. near Bury St. Edmund's, Suffolk,
England, 24 Jan., 1286; d. at Auckland, Durham, England, 24
April, 1345. He was the son of Sir Richard Aungerville, but was
named after his birthplace. He studied at Oxford and became a
Benedictine. Having been appointed tutor to Prince Edward, son
of Edward II and Isabella of France, he was exposed to some
danger during the stormy scenes that led to the deposition of
the king. On the accession of his pupil to the throne (1327), de
Bury eventually rose to be Bishop of Durham (1333), High
Chancellor (1334), and Treasurer of England (1336). He was sent
on two embassies to John XXII of Avignon, and on one of his
visits, probably in 1330, he made the acquaintance of the poet
Petrarch. He continued to enjoy the favor of the king, and in
his later years took a prominent part in the diplomatic
negotiations with Scotland and France. He died at his manor of
Auckland, and was buried in the cathedral of Durham. He founded
Durham College at Oxford, and according to tradition bequeathed
to its library most of the books which he had spent his life in
collecting. There they remained until the dissolution of the
College by Henry VIII. They were then scattered, some going to
Balliol College, others to the university (Duke Humphrey's)
library, and still others passing into the possession of Dr.
George Owen, the purchaser of the site whereon the dissolved
college had stood. These books were of course all in manuscript,
for the art of printing had not yet been discovered.
Bale mentions three of de Bury's works, namely: "Philobiblon";
"Epistolae Familiarium"; and "Orationes ad Principes". It is by
the "Philobiblon" that he is principally remembered. It was
first printed at Cologne in 1473, then at Spires in 1483, in
Paris in 1500, and at Oxford in 1598-99. Subsequent editions
were made in Germany in 1610, 1614, 1674, and 1703, and in Paris
in 1856. It was translated into English in 1832 by J. B. Inglis,
and of this translation a reprint was made at Albany, New York,
in 1861. The standard Latin text--the result of a collation of
28 manuscripts and of the printed editions--was established by
Ernest C. Thomas and edited by him, with English translation, in
1888. A reprint of Thomas's translation appeared in the "Past
and Present" Library in 1905.
Bishop Richard had a threefold object in writing the
"Philobiblon": he wished to inculcate on the clergy the pursuit
of learning and the cherishing of books as its receptacles; to
vindicate to his contemporaries and to posterity his own action
in devoting so much time, attention, and money to the
acquisition of books; and to give directions for the management
of the library which he proposed to establish at Durham College,
Oxford. The work is important for its side-lights on the state
of learning and manners and on the habits of the clergy in
fourteenth-century England. He is the true type of the
book-lover. He had a library in each of his residences.
Conspicuous in his legacy are Greek and Hebrew grammars. He did
not despise the novelties of the moderns, but he preferred the
well-tested labors of the ancients, and, while he did not
neglect the poets, he had but little use for law-books. He kept
copyists, scribes, binders, correctors, and illuminators, and he
was particularly careful to restore defaced or battered texts.
His directions for the lending and care of the books intended
for his college at Oxford are minute, and evince considerable
practical forethought. His humility and simple faith are shown
in the concluding chapter, in which he acknowledges his sins and
asks the future students of his college to pray for the repose
of his soul.
BALE, Scriptorum Illustrium majoris Britanniae, quam nunc
Angliam et Scotiam vocant, Catalogus (Basle, 1557); WARTON,
History of English Poetry, I, 146; HALLAM, Introduction to the
Literature of Europe in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and
Serenteenth Centuries; THOMAS, The Philobiblon newly translated,
published under the title of The Love of Books in the Past and
Present Library (1905); SURTEES SOCIETY, edition of Scriptores
Tres; WHARTON, Anglia Sacra; Cambridge Modern History, I, xvii;
The Cambridge History of English Literature, II, 410; BLADES,
The Enemies of Books; CLARK, The Care of Books.
P.J. LENNOX
Francois-Marie-Benjamin Richard de la Vergne
Franc,ois-Marie-Benjamin Richard de la Vergne
Archbishop of Paris, born at Nantes, 1 March, 1819; died in
Paris, 28 January, 1908.
Educated at the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice he became in 1849
secretary to Bishop Jacquemet at Nantes, then, from 1850 to
1869, vicar-general. In 1871 he became Bishop of Belley where he
began the process for the beatification of the Cure d'Ars. On 7
May, 1875, he became coadjutor of Cardinal Guibert, Archbishop
of Paris, whom he succeeded 8 July, 1886, becoming cardinal with
the title of Santa Maria in Via, 24 May, 1889. He devoted much
energy to the completion of the Basilica of the Sacred Heart at
Montmartre, which he consecrated. Politically, Cardinal Richard
was attached by ties of esteem and sympathy to the Monarchist
Catholics. In 1892, when Leo XIII recommended the rallying of
Catholics to the Republic (see FRANCE, The Third Republic and
the Church in France), the cardinal created the "Union of
Christian France" (Union de la France Chretienne), to unite all
Catholics on the sole basis of the defence of religion. The
Monarchists opposed this "rallying" (Ralliement) with the policy
which this union represented, and at last, at the pope's desire,
the union was dissolved. On many occasions Cardinal Richard
spoke in defence of the religious congregations, and Leo XIII
addressed to him a letter (27 December, 1900) on the religious
who were menaced by the then projected Law of Associations. In
the domain of hagiography he earned distinction by his "Vie de
la bienheureuse Franc,oise d'Amboise" (1865) and "Saints de
l'eglise de Bretagne" (1872).
L'episcopat franc,ais, 1802-1905, s. v. Belley, Paris; LECANUET,
L'Eglise de France sous la troisieme republique, II (Paris,
1910).
GEORGES GOYAU
St. Richard de Wyche
St. Richard de Wyche
Bishop and confessor, b. about 1197 at Droitwich,
Worcestershire, from which his surname is derived; d. 3 April,
1253, at Dover. He was the second son of Richard and Alice de
Wyche. His father died while he was still young and the family
property fell into a state of great delapidation. His elder
brother offered to resign the inheritance to him, but Richard
refused the offer, although he undertook the management of the
estate and soon restored it to a good condition. He went to
Oxford, where he and two companions lived in such poverty that
they had only one tunic and hooded gown between them, in which
they attended lectures by turns. He then went to Paris and on
his return proceeded Master of Arts. At Bologna he studied canon
law, in which he acquired a great reputation and was elected
Chancellor of the University of Oxford.
His learning and sanctity were so famed that Edmund Rich,
Archbishop of Canterbury, and Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of
Lincoln, both offered him the post of chancellor of their
respective dioceses. Richard accepted the archbishop's offer and
thenceforward became St. Edmund's intimate friend and follower.
He approved the archbishop's action in opposing the king on the
question of the vacant sees, accompanied him in his exile to
Pontigny, was present at Soissy when he died, and made him a
model in life. Richard supplied Matthew Paris with material for
his biography, and, after attending the translation of his
relics to Pontigny in 1249, wrote an account of the incident in
a letter published by Matthew Paris (Historia major, V, VI).
Retiring to the house of the Dominicans at Orleans, Richard
studied theology, was ordained priest, and, after founding a
chapel in honour of St. Edmund, returned to England where he
became Vicar of Deal and Rector of Charring. Soon afterwards he
was induced by Boniface of Savoy, the new Archbishop of
Canterbury, to resume his former office of chancellor.
In 1244 Ralph Neville, Bishop of Chichester, died; the election
of Robert Passelewe, Archdeacon of Chichester, to the vacant
see, was quashed by Boniface at a synod of his suffragans, held
3 June, 1244, and on his recommendation the chapter elected
Richard, their choice being immediately confirmed by the
archbishop. Henry III was indignant, as Robert Passelewe was a
favourite, and he refused to surrender to Richard the
temporalities of his see. The Saint took his case to Innocent
IV, who consecrated him in person at Lyons, 5 March, 1245, and
sent him back to England. But Henry was immovable. Thus homeless
in his own diocese, Richard was dependent on the charity of his
clergy, one of whom, Simon of Tarring, shared with him the
little he possessed. At length, in 1246, Henry was induced by
the threats of the pope to deliver up the temporalities. As
bishop, Richard lived in great austerity, giving away most of
his revenues as alms. He compiled a number of statutes which
regulate in great detail the lives of the clergy, the
celebration of Divine service, the administration of the
sacraments, church privileges, and other matters. Every priest
in the diocese was bound to obtain a copy of these statutes and
bring it to the diocesan synod (Wilkins, "Concilia", I, 688-93);
in this way the standard of life among the clergy was raised
considerably. For the better maintenance of his cathedral
Richard instituted a yearly collection to be made in every
parish of the diocese on Easter or Whit Sunday. The mendicant
orders, particularly the Dominicans, received special
encouragement from him.
In 1250 Richard was named as one of the collectors of the
subsidy for the crusades (Bliss, "Calendar of Papal Letters", I,
263) and two years later the king appointed him to preach the
crusade in London. He made strenuous efforts to rouse enthusiasm
for the cause in the Dioceses of Chichester and Canterbury, and
while journeying to Dover, where he was to consecrate a new
church dedicated to St. Edmund, he was taken ill. Upon reaching
Dover, he went to a hospital called "Maison Dieu", performed the
consecration ceremony on 2 April, but died the next morning. His
body was taken back to Chichester and buried in the cathedral.
He was solemnly canonized by Urban IV in the Franciscan church
at Viterbo, 1262, and on 20 Feb. a papal licence for the
translation of his relics to a new shrine was given; but the
unsettled state of the country prevented this until 16 June,
1276, when the translation was performed by Archbishop Kilwardby
in the presence of Edward I. This shrine, which stood in the
feretory behind the high altar, was rifled and destroyed at the
Reformation. The much-restored altar tomb in the south transept
now commonly assigned to St. Richard has no evidence to support
its claim, and no relics are known to exist. The feast is
celebrated on 3 April. The most accurate version of St.
Richard's will, which has been frequently printed, is that given
by Blaauw in "Sussex Archaeological Collections", I, 164-92,
with a translation and valuable notes. His life was written by
his confessor Ralph Bocking shortly after his canonization and
another short life, compiled in the fifteenth century, was
printed by Capgrave. Both these are included in the notice of
St. Richard in the Bollandist "Acta Sanctorum".
HARDY, Descriptive catalogue of MSS. relating to the history of
Great Britain and Ireland, III (London, 1871), 136-9; Acta SS.,
April, I (Venice, 1768), 277-318; CAPGRAVE, Nova legenda Angliae
(London, 1516), 269; PARIS, Historia major, ed. MADDEN in R. S.,
II, III (London, 1866); Annales monastici, ed. LUARD in R. S.
(London, 1864); Flores historiarum, ed. IDEM in R. S., II
(London, 1890); Rishanger's Chronicle, ed. RILEY in R. S.
(London, 1865); TRIVET, ed. HOG, Annales sex regum Angliae
(London, 1845); Calendar of Papal Letters, ed. BLISS, I (London,
1893); Vita di S. Ricardo vescovo di Cicestria (Milan, 1706);
STEPHENS, Memorials of the See of Chichester (London, 1876),
83-98, contains the best modern life; WALLACE, St. Edmund of
Canterbury (London, 1893), 196-205; GASQUET, Henry III and the
Church (London, 1905), 222, 343; CHALLONER, Britannia sancta
(London, 1745), 206-13; STANTON, Menology of England and Wales
(London, 1887), 141-3.
G. ROGER HUDLESTON
Bl. Richard Fetherston
Bl. Richard Fetherston
Priest and martyr; died at Smithfield, 30 July, 1540. He was
chaplain to Catharine of Aragon and schoolmaster to her
daughter, Princess Mary, afterwards queen. He is called sacrae
theologiae Doctor by Pits (De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus,
729). He was one of the theologians appointed to defend Queen
Catharine's cause in the divorce proceedings before the legates
Wolsey and Campeggio, and is said to have written a treatise
"Contra divortium Henrici et Catharinae, Liber unus". No copy of
this work is known to exist. He took part in the session of
Convocation which began in April, 1529, and was one of the few
members who refused to sign the Act declaring Henry's marriage
with Catharine to be illegal ab initio, through the pope's
inability to grant a dispensation in such a case. In 1534 he was
called upon to take the Oath of Supremacy and, on refusing to do
so, was committed to the Tower, 13 December, 1534. He seems to
have remained in prison till 30 July, 1540, when he was hanged,
drawn, and quartered at Smithfield, together with the Catholic
theologians, Thomas Abel and Edward Powell, who like himself had
been councillors to Queen Catharine in the divorce proceedings,
and three heretics, Barnes, Garret, and Jerome, condemned for
teaching Zwinglianism. All six were drawn through the streets
upon three hurdles, a Catholic and a heretic on each hurdle. The
Protestants were burned, and the three Catholics executed in the
usual manner, their limbs being fixed over the gates of the city
and their heads being placed upon poles on London Bridge.
Richard was beatified by Leo XIII, 29 December, 1886.
PITS, De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus (Paris, 1619), 729;
SANDER, tr. LEWIS, Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism
(London, 1877), 65, 67, 150; BURNET, History of the Reformation,
ed. POCOCK (Oxford, 1865), I, 260, 472, 566-67; IV, 555, 563;
TANNER, Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica (London, 1748), 278;
Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation (Parker
Society, Cambridge, 1846), I, 209; Calendar of State Papers,
Henry VIII, ed. GAIRDNER (London, 1882, 1883, 1885, VI, 311,
1199; VII, 530; VIII, 666, 1001.
G. ROGER HUDLESTON
Richard of Cirencester
Richard of Cirencester
Chronicler, d. about 1400. He was the compiler of a chronicle
from 447 to 1066, entitled "Speculum Historiale de Gestis Regum
Angliae". The work, which is in four books, is of little
historical value, but contains several charters granted to
Westminster Abbey. Nothing is known of Richard's life except
that he was a monk of Westminster, who made a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem in 1391, was still at Westminster in 1397, and that he
lay sick in the infirmary in 1400. Two other works are
attributed to him: "De Officiis", and "Super Symbolum Majus et
Minus", but neither is now extant. In the eighteenth century his
name was used by Charles Bertram as the pretended author of his
forgery "Richardus Copenensis de situ Britanniae", which
deceived Stukeley and many subsequent antiquarians and
historians, including Lingard, and which was only finally
exposed by Woodward in 1866-67. This spurious chronicle,
however, still appears under Richard's name in Giles, "Six
English Chronicles" (London, 1872).
Ricardi Cicestrensis Speculum Historiale, ed. MAYOR, Rolls
Series (London, 1863-69); STUKELEY An Account of Richard of
Cirencester and his works (London, 1757); HARDY Descriptive
Catalogue (London, 1871); HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog, s. v.;
BOLLANDISTS. Catalogus cod. hagiog. Lat. B. N. (Paris, 1893).
EDWIN BURTON
Richard of Cornwall
Richard of Cornwall
(RICHARD RUFUS, RUYS, ROSSO, ROWSE).
The dates of his birth and death are unknown, but he was still
living in 1259. He was an Oxford Franciscan, possibly a Master
of Arts of that university, who had studied for a time in Paris
(1238), and then returned to Oxford. He was chosen with Haymo of
Faversham to go to Rome to oppose the minister-general Elias. In
1250 he was lecturing at Oxford on the "Sentences", till he was
driven away by the riots, when he returned to Paris and
continued lecturing there, gaining the title Philosophus
Admirabilis; but according to Roger Bacon his teaching was very
mischievous, and produced evil results for the next forty years.
He was again at Oxford in 1255 as regent-master of the friars.
Several works, all still in MS., are attributed to him. These
are: "Commentaries on the Master of the Sentences", a work
formerly at Assisi; "Commentary on Bonaventure's third book of
Sentences" (Assisi); and a similar commentary on the fourth book
(Assisi); Pits ("De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus") denies
his identity with Richard Rufus on the ground that Rufus was
born at Cirencester in Gloucestershire, and not in Cornwall.
Monumenta Franciscana, ed. BREWER AND HOWLETT in R. S. (London,
1858-82); WADDING, Annales Minorum, IV (Lyons and Rome, 1650);
2nd ed. (Rome, 1731-45); and supplement by SBARALEA (1806);
PARKINSON, Collectanea Anglo-Minoritica (London, 1726); LITTLE,
The Grey Friars in Oxford (Oxford, 1892); DENIFLE, Chartularium
Universitatis Parisiensis (Paris 1889); see also tr. of THOMAS
OF ECCLESTON by FR. CUTHBERT, The Friars and how they came to
England (London, 1903), and The Chronicle of Thomas of Eccleston
(London, 1909).
EDWIN BURTON
Richard of Middletown
Richard of Middletown
(A MEDIA VILLA).
Flourished at the end of the thirteenth century, but the dates
of his birth and death and most incidents of his life are
unknown. Middleton Stoney in Oxfordshire and Middleton Cheyney
in Northamptonshire have both been suggested as his native
place, and he has also been claimed as a Scotsman. He probably
studied first at Oxford, but in 1283 he was at the University of
Paris and graduated Bachelor of Divinity in that year. He
entered the Franciscan order. In 1278 he had been appointed by
the general of his order to examine the doctrines of Peter
Olivus, and the same work was again engaging his attention in
1283. In 1286 he was sent with two other Franciscans to Naples
to undertake the education of two of the sons of Charles II,
Ludwig, afterwards a Franciscan, and Robert. After the defeat of
Charles by Peter of Arragon the two princes were carried as
hostages to Barcelona and Richard accompanied them, sharing
their captivity till their release in 1295. The rest of his life
lies in obscurity. A new point of interest at the present day
lies in the fact that, medieval scholastic though he was, he
knew and studied the phenomena of hypnotism, and left the
results of his investigations in his "Quodlibeta" (Paris, 1519,
fol. 90 8) where he treats of what would now be termed
auto-suggestion and adduces some instances of tele pathy.
His works include "Super sententias Petri Lombardi", written
between 1281 and 1285, and first printed at Venice, 1489;
"Quaestiones Quodlibetales" in MS. at Oxford and elsewhere;
"Quodlibeta tria" printed with the Sentences at Venice, 1509;
"De gradibus formarum" in MS. at Munich; and "Quae stiones
disputatae" in MS. at Assisi. Other works which have been
attributed. to him are: "Super epistolas Pauli"; "Super
evangelia"; "Super distinctiones decreti"; "De ordine
judiciorum"; "De clavium sacerdotalium potestate"; "Contra
Patrem Joannem Olivum"; a poem, "De conceptione immaculata
Virginis Mariae"; three MS. sermons now in the Bibliotheque
Nationale (MS. 14947, nos. 47, 69, 98), and a sermon on the
Ascension, the MS. of which is at Erlangen. Works erroneously
ascribed to him are a treatise on the rule of St. Francis; the
"Quadragesimale" which was written by Francis of Asti; the
completion of the "Summa" of Alexander of Hales, and an
"Expositio super Ave Maria", probably by Richard of Saxony. His
death is assigned by some to 1307 or 1308, by Pits to 1300, by
Parkinson to some earlier date on the ground that he was one of
the "Four Masters", the expositors of the Rule of St. Francis.
WADDING, Annales Minorum (2nd ed., Rome, 1731-45), and
supplement by SBARALEA (1806); PARKINSON, Collectanea Anglo
Minoritica (London, 1726); DE MARTIGNE, La Scolastique et les
traditions Franciscaines: Richard de Middletown in Revue.
scien., eccles., II (1885); PORTALIE, L'hypnotisme au moyen age:
Aricenne Avicenne et Richard Middletown in etudes relig. hist.
Litt., LV (1892); CHEVALIER, Repertoire des sources historiques
du Moyen Age (Paris, 1905); KINGSFORD in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.
Middleton.
EDWIN BURTON
Richard of St. Victor
Richard of St. Victor
Theologian, native of Scotland, but the date and place of his
birth are unknown; d. 1173 and was commemorated on 10 March in
the necrology of the abbey. He was professed at the monastery of
St. Victor under the first Abbot Gilduin (d. 1155) and was a
disciple of the great mystic Hugo whose principles and methods
he adopted and elaborated. His career was strictly monastic, and
his relations with the outer world were few and slight. He was
sub-prior of the monastery in 1159, and subsequently became
prior. During his tenure of the latter office, serious trouble
arose in the community of St. Victor from the misconduct of the
English Abbot Ervisius, whose irregular life brought upon him a
personal admonition from Alexander III, and was subsequently
referred by the pope to a commission of inquiry under the royal
authority; after some delay and resistance on the part of the
abbot his resignation was obtained and he retired from the
monastery. A letter of exhortation was addressed by the pope to
"Richard, the prior" and the community in 1170. Richard does not
appear to have taken any active part in these proceedings, but
the disturbed condition of his surroundings may well have
accentuated his desire for the interior solace of mystical
contemplation. Ervisius's resignation took place in 1172. In
1165, St. Victor had been visited by St. Thomas of Canterbury,
after his flight from Northampton; and Richard was doubtless one
of the auditors of the discourse delivered by the archbishop on
that occasion. A letter to Alexander III, dealing with the
affairs of the archbishop, and signed by Richard is extant and
published by Migne. Like his master, Hugo, Richard may probably
have had some acquaintance and intercourse with St. Bernard, who
is thought to have been the Bernard to whom the treatise "De
tribus appropriatis personis in Trinitate" is addressed. His
reputation as a theologian extended far beyond the precincts of
his monastery, and copies of his writings were eagerly sought by
other religious houses. Exclusively a theologian, unlike Hugo,
he appears to have had no interest in philosophy, and took no
part in the acute philosophieal controversies of his time; but,
like all the School of St. Victor, he was willing to avail
himself of the didactic and constructive methods in theology
which had been introduced by Abelard. Nevertheless, he regarded
merely secular learning with much suspicion, holding it to be
worthless as an end in itself, and only an occasion of worldly
pride and self-seeking when divorced from the knowledge of
Divine things. Such learning he calls, in the antithetical style
which characterizes all his writing, "Sapientia insipida et
doctrina indocta"; and the professor of such learning is
"Captator famae, neglector conscientiae". Such worldly-minded
persons should stimulate the student of sacred things to greater
efforts in his own higher sphere--"When we consider how much the
philosophers of this world have laboured, we should be ashamed
to be inferior to them"; "We should seek always to comprehend by
reason what we hold by faith."
His works fall into the three classes of dogmatic, mystical, and
exegetical. In the first, the most important is the treatise in
six books on the Trinity, with the supplement on the attributes
of the Three Persons, and the treatise on the Incarnate Word.
But greater interest now belongs to his mystical theology, which
is mainly contained in the two books on mystical contemplation,
entitled respectively "Benjamin Minor" and "Benjamin Major", and
the allegorical treatise on the Tabernacle. He carries on the
mystical doctrine of Hugo, in a somewhat more detailed scheme,
in which the successive stages of contemplation are described.
These are six im number, divided equally among the three powers
of the soul--the imagination, the reason, and the intelligence,
and ascending from the contemplation of the visible things of
creation to the rapture in which the soul is carried "beyond
itself" into the Divine Presence, by the three final stages of
"Dilatio, sublevatio, alienatio". This schematic arrangement of
contemplative soul-states is substantially adopted by Gerson in
his more systematic treatise on mystical theology, who, however,
makes the important reservation that the distinction between
reason and intelligence is to be understood as functional and
not real. Much use is made in the mystical treatises of the
allegorical interpretation of Scripture for which the Victorine
school had a special affection. Thus the titles "Benjamin Major"
and "Minor" refer to Ps. lxvii, "Benjamin in mentis excessu".
Rachel represents the reason, Lia represents charity; the
tabernacle is the type of the state of perfection, in which the
soul is the dwelling-place of God. In like manner, the mystical
or devotional point of view predominates in the exegetical
treatises; though the critical and doctrinal exposition of the
text also receives attention. The four books entitled "Tractatus
exceptionum", and attributed to Richard, deal with matters of
secular learning. Eight titles of works attributed to him by
Trithemius (De Script. Eccl.) refer probably to MS. fragments of
his known works. A "Liber Penitentialis" is mentioned by
Montfauc,on as attributed to a "Ricardus Secundus a Sancto
Victore", and may probably be identical with the treatise "De
potestate solvendi et ligandi" above mentioned. Nothing is
otherwise known of a second Richard of St. Victor. Fifteen other
MSS. are said to exist of works attributed to Richard which have
appeared in none of the published editions, and are probably
spurious. Eight editions of his works have been published:
Venice, 1506 (incomplete) and 1592; Paris, 1518 and 1550; Lyons,
1534; Cologne, 1621; Rouen, 1650, by the Canons of St. Victor;
and by Migne.
HUGONIN, Notice sur R. de St. Victor in P.L., CXCVI; ENGELHARDT,
R. von St. Victor u. J. Ruysbroek (Erlangen, 1838); VAUGHAN,
Hours uith the Mystics V (London, 1893); INGE, Christian
Mysticism (London, 1898); DE WULF, Histoire de la philosophie
medievale (Louvain, 1905); BUONAMICI, R. di San Vittore saggi di
studio sulla filosofia mistica del secolo XII (Alatri, 1898);
VON HUGEL, The Mystical Element in Religion (London, 1909);
UNDERHILL, Mysticism (London, 1911).
A.B. SHARPE
Ven. William Richardson
Ven. William Richardson
( Alias Anderson.) Last martyr under Queen Elizabeth; b.
according to Challoner at Vales in Yorkshire (i.e. presumably
Wales, near Sheffield), but, according to the Valladolid diary,
a Lancashire man; executed at Tyburn, 17 Feb., 1603. He arrived
at Reims 16 July, 1592 and on 21 Aug. following was sent to
Valladolid, where he arrived 23 Dec. Thence, 1 Oct., 1594, he
was sent to Seville where he was ordained. According to one
account he was arrested at Clement's Inn on 12 Feb., but another
says he had been kept a close prisoner in Newgate for a week
before he was condemned at the Old Bailey on the 15 Feb., under
stat. 27 Eliz., c. 2, for being a priest and coming into the
realm. He was betrayed by one of his trusted friends to the Lord
Chief Justice, who expedited his trial and execution with
unseemly haste, and seems to have acted more as a public
prosecutor than as a judge. At his execution he showed great
courage and constancy, dying most cheerfully, to the edification
of all beholders. One of his last utterances was a prayer for
the queen.
JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT
Blessed Richard Thirkeld
Bl. Richard Thirkeld
Martyr; b. at Coniscliffe, Durham, England; d. at York, 29 May,
1583. From Queen's College, Oxford, where he was in 1564-5, he
went to Reims, where he was ordained priest, 18 April, 1579, and
left 23 May for the mission, where he ministered in or about
York, and acted as confessor to Ven. Margaret Clitheroe. On the
eve of the Annunciation, 1583, he was arrested while visiting
one of the Catholic prisoners in the Ousebridge Kidcote, York,
and at once confessed his priesthood, both to the pursuivants,
who arrested him, and to the mayor before whom he was brought,
and for the night was lodged in the house of the high sheriff.
The next day his trial took place, at which he managed to appear
in cassock and biretta. The charge was one of having reconciled
the queen's subjects to the Church of Rome. He was found guilty
on 27 May and condemned 28 May. He spent the night in
instructing his fellow-prisoners, and the morning of his
condemnation in upholding the faith and constancy of those who
were brought to the bar. No details of his execution are extant:
six of his letters still remain, and are summarized by Dom Bede
Camm.
JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT
Blessed Richard Whiting
Blessed Richard Whiting
Last Abbot of Glastonbury and martyr, parentage and date of
birth unknown, executed 15 Nov., 1539; was probably educated in
the claustral school at Glastonbury, whence he proceeded to
Cambridge, graduating as M.A. in 1483 and D.D. in 1505. If, as
is probable, he was already a monk when he went to Cambridge he
must have received the habit from John Selwood, Abbot of
Glastonbury from 1456 to 1493. He was ordained deacon in 1500
and priest in 1501, and held for some years the office of
chamberlain of his monastery. In February, 1525, Richard Bere,
Abbot of Glastonbury, died, and the community, after deciding to
elect his successor per formam compromissi, which places the
selection in the hands of some one person of note, agreed to
request Cardinal Wolsey to make the choice of an abbot for them.
After obtaining the king's permission to act and giving a
fortnight's inquiry to the circumstances of the case Wolsey on 3
March, 1525, nominated Richard Whiting to the vacant post. The
first ten years of Whiting's rule were prosperous and peaceful,
and he appears in the State papers as a careful overseer of his
abbey alike in spirituals and temporals. Then, in August, 1535,
came the first "visitation" of Glastonbury by Dr. Layton, who,
however, found all in good order. In spite of this, however, the
abbot's jurisdiction over the town of Glastonbury was suspended
and minute "injunctions" were given to him about the management
of the abbey property; but then and more than once during the
next few years he was assured that there was no intention of
suppressing the abbey.
By January, 1539, Glastonbury was the only monastery left in
Somerset, and on 19 September in that year the royal
commissioners, Lavton, Pollard and Moyle, arrived there without
warning. Whiting happened to be at his manor of Sharpham.
Thither the commissioners followed and examined him according to
certain articles received from Cromwell, which apparently dealt
with the question of the succession to the throne. The abbot,
was then taken back to Glastonbury and thence sent up to London
to the Tower that Cromwell might examine him for himself, but
the precise charge on which he was arrested, and subsequently
executed, remains uncertain though his case is usually referred
to as one of treason. On 2 October, the commissioners wrote to
Cromwell that they had now come to the knowledge of "divers and
sundry treasons committed by the Abbot of Glastonbury", and
enclosed a "book" of evidences thereof with the accusers' names,
which however is no longer forthcoming. In Cromwell's MS.,
"Remembrances", for the same month, are the entries: "Item,
Certayn persons to be sent to the Towre for the further
examenacyon of the Abbot, of Glaston . . . . Item. The Abbot, of
Glaston to (be) tryed at Glaston and also executvd there with
his complvcys. . . Item. Councillors to give evidence against
the Abbot of Glaston, Rich. Pollard, Lewis Forstew (Forstell),
Thos. Moyle." Marillac, the French Ambassador, on 25 October
wrote: "The Abbot of Glastonbury. . . has lately, been put in
the Tower, because, in taking the Abbey treasures, valued at
200,000 crowns, they found a written book of arguments in behalf
of queen Katherine." If the charge was high treason, which
appears most probable, then, as a member of the House of Peers,
Whiting should have been attainted by an Act of Parliament
passed for the purpose, but his execution was an accomplished
fact, before Parliament even met. In fact it seems clear that
his doom was deliberately wrapped in obscurity by Cromwell and
Henry, for Marillac, writing to Francis I on 30 November, after
mentioning the execution of the Abbots of Reading and
Glastonbury, adds: "could learn no particulars of what they were
charged with, except that it was the relics of the late lord
marquis"; which makes things more perplexing than ever. Whatever
the charge, however, Whiting was sent back to Somerset in the
care of Pollard and reached Wells on 14 November. Here some sort
of trial apparently took place, and next day, Saturday, 15
November, he was taken to Glastonbury with two of his monks, Dom
John Thorne and Dom Roger James, where all three were fastened
upon hurdles and dragged by horses to the top of Toe Hill which
overlooks the town. Here they were hanged, drawn and quartered,
Abbot Whiting's head being fastened over the gate of the now
deserted abbey and his limbs exposed at Wells, Bath, Ilchester
and Bridgewater. Richard Whiting was beatified by Pope Leo XIII
in his decree of 13 May, 1895. His watch and seal are still
preserved in the museum at Glastonbury.
G. ROGER HUDDLESTON
Cardinal Richelieu
Armand-Jean du Plessis, Duke de Richelieu
Cardinal; French statesman, b. in Paris, 5 September, 1585; d.
there 4 December 1642. At first he intended to follow a military
career, but when, in 1605, his brother Alfred resigned the
Bishopric of Luc,on and retired to the Grande Chartreuse,
Richelieu obtained the see from Henry IV and withdrew to the
country to take up his theological studies under the direction
of Bishop Cospean of Aire. He was consecrated bishop on 17
April, 1607; he was not yet twenty-two years old, although the
Brief of Paul V dated 19 December, 1606, announcing his
appointment contains the statement: "in vigesimo tertio aetatis
anno tantum constitutus". Mgr. Lacroix, the historian of
Richelieu's youth, believes that in a journey made to Rome at
the end of 1606, Richelieu deceived the pope as to his age, but
the incident is still obscure. In his diocese, Richelieu showed
great zeal for the conversion of Protestants and appointed the
Oratorians and the Capuchins to give missions in all the
parishes. Richelieu represented the clergy of Poitou in the
States General of 1614, where his political career began. There
he was the mouth-piece of the Church, and in a celebrated
discourse demanded that bishops and prelates be summoned to the
royal councils, that the distribution of ecclesiastical
benefices to the laity be forbidden, that the Church be exempt
from taxation, that Protestants who usurped churches or had
their coreligionists interred in them be punished, and that the
Decrees of the Council of Trent be promulgated throughout
France. He ended by assuring the young king Louis XIII that the
desire of the clergy was to have the royal power so assured that
it might be "comme un ferme rocher qui brise tout ce qui le
heurte" (as a firm rock which crushes all that opposes it).
Richelieu was named secretary of state on 30 November, 1616, but
after the assassination of Concini, favourite of Maria de'
Medici, he was forced to leave the ministry and follow the queen
mother to Blois. To escape the political intrigues which pursued
him he retired in June, 1617, to the priory of Coussay and,
during this time of leisure caused by his disgrace, published in
October, 1617 (date confirmed by Mgr. Lacroix), his "Les
principaux points de la foi de l'eglise catholique, defendus
contre l'eecrit adresse au Roi par les quartre ministres de
Charenton"; it was upon reading this book half a century later
that Jacques de Coras, a Protestant pastor of Tonneins, was
converted to Catholicism. Richelieu continued to be represented
to the king as an enemy to his power; the Capuchin, Leclerc du
Tremblay, never succeeded in completely clearing him in Louis
XIII's opinion. To disarm suspicion Richelieu asked the king to
name a place of exile, and at his order went in 1618 to Avignon,
where he passed nearly a year and where he composed a catechism
which became famous under the name of "Instruction du chretien".
This book, destined to be read in every parish each Sunday at
the sermon, was a real blessing at a time when ignorance of
religion was the principal evil. When Maria de' Medici escaped
from Blois in 1619, Richelieu was chosen by the minister Luynes
to negotiate for peace between Louis XIII and his mother. By
Brief of 3 November, 1622, he was created cardinal by Gregory
XV. On 19 April, 1624, he re-entered the Council of Ministers,
and on 12 August, 1624, was made its president. Richelieu's
policy can be reduced to two principal ideas: the domestic
unification of France and opposition to the House of Austria. At
home he had to contend with constant conspiracies in which Maria
de' Medici, Queen Anne of Austria, Gaston d'Orleans (the king's
brother), and the highest nobles of the court were involved. The
executions of Marillac (1632), Montmorency (1632), Cinq-Mars and
of de Thou (1642) intimidated the enemies of the cardinal. He
had also to contend with the Protestants who were forming a
state within the state (see HUGUENOTS). The capitulation of La
Rochelle and the peace of Alais (28 June, 1629) annihilated
Protestantism as a political party.
Richelieu's foreign policy (for which see LECLERC DU TREMBLAY)
was characterized by his fearlessness in making alliances with
the foreign Protestants. At various times the Protestants of the
Grisons, Sweden, the Protestant Princes of Germany, and Bernard
of Saxe-Weimar were his allies. The favourable treaties signed
by Mazarin were the result of Richelieu's policy of Protestant
alliances, a policy which was severely censured by a number of
Catholics. At the end of 1625, when Richelieu was preparing to
give back Valteline to the Protestant Grisons, the partisans of
Spain called him "Cardinal of the Huguenots", and two pamphlets,
attributed to the Jesuits Eudemon Joannes and Jean Keller,
appeared against him; these he had burned. Hostilities, however,
increased until finally the king's confessor opposed the foreign
policy of the cardinal. This was a very important episode, and
on it the recent researches of Father de Rochemonteix in the
archives of the Society of Jesus have cast new light. Father
Caussin, author of "La Cour Sainte", the Jesuit whom Richelieu,
on 25 March, 1636, had made the king's confessor, tried to use
against the cardinal the influence of Mlle. de La Fayette, a
lady for whom the king had entertained a certain regard and who
had become a nun. On 8 December, 1637, in a solemn interview
Caussin recalled to the king his duties towards his wife, Anne
of Austria, to whom he was too indifferent; asked him to allow
his mother, Maria de' Medici, to return to France; and pointed
out the dangers to Catholicism which might arise through
Richelieu's alliance with the Turks and the Protestant princes
of Germany. After this interview Caussin gave Communion to the
king and addressed him a very beautiful sermon, entreating him
to obey his directions. Richelieu was anxious that the king's
confessor should occupy himself solely with "giving
absolutions", consequently, on 10 December, 1637, Caussin was
dismissed and exiled to Rennes, and his successor, Father
Jacques Sirmond, celebrated for his historical knowledge, was
forced to promise that, if he saw "anything censurable in the
conduct of the State", he would report it to the cardinal and
not attempt to influence the king's conscience. However, Father
Caussin's fears concerning Richelieu's foreign policy were not
shared by all of his confreres. Father Lallemand, for instance,
affirmed that it was rash to blame the king's political alliance
with the Protestant princes -- an alliance which had been made
only after an unsuccessful attempt to form one with Bavaria and
the Catholic princes of Germany.
That Richelieu was possessed of religious sentiments cannot be
contested. It was he who in February, 1638, prompted the
declaration by which Louis XIII consecrated the Kingdom of
France to the Virgin Mary; in the ministry he surrounded himself
with priests and religious; as general he employed Cardinal de
la Valette; as admiral, Sourdis, Archbishop of Bordeaux; as
diplomat, Berulle; as chief auxiliary he had Leclerc du
Tremblay. He himself designated Mazarin his successor. He had a
high idea of the sacerdotal dignity, was continually protesting
against he encroachments of the parlements on the jurisdiction
of the Church, and advised the king to choose as bishops only
those who should "have passed after their studies a considerable
time in the seminaries, the places established for the study of
the ecclesiastical functions". He wished to compel the bishops
to reside in their dioceses, to establish seminaries there, and
to visit their parishes. He aided the efforts of St. Vincent de
Paul to induce the bishops to institute the "exercises des
ordinants", retreats, during which the young clerics were to
prepare themselves for the priesthood. Richelieu foresaw the
perils to which nascent Jansenism would expose the Church.
Saint-Cyran's doctrines on the constitution of the Church, his
views on the organization of the "great Christian Republic", his
liaison with Jansenius (who in 1635 had composed a violent
pamphlet against France under the names of Mars gallicus), and
the manner in which he opposed the annulment of the marriage of
Gaston d'Orleans, drew upon him the cardinal's suspicion. In
having him arrested 14 May, 1638, Richelieu declared that "had
Luther and Calvin been confined before they had begun to
dogmatize, the states would have been spared many troubles". Two
months later Richelieu forced the solitaries of Port Royal-des-
Champs to disperse; some were sent to Paris, others to
Ferte-Milon. Saint-Cyran remained in the dungeon of Vincennes
until the cardinal's death. With the co-operation of the
Benedictine Gregoire Tarisse, Richelieu devoted himself
seriously to the reform of the Benedictines. Named coadjutor to
the Abbot of Cluny in 1627, and Abbot of Cluny in 1629, he
called to this monastery the Reformed Benedictines of
Saint-Vannes. He proposed forming the congregations of
Saint-Vannes and Saint-Maur into one body, of which he was to
have been superior. Only half of this project was accomplished,
however, when in 1636 he succeeded in uniting the Order of Cluny
with the Congregation of Saint-Maur. From 1622 Richelieu was
proviseur of the Sorbonne, and was in virtue of this office head
of the Association of Doctors of the Sorbonne. He had the
Sorbonne entirely rebuilt between 1626 and 1629, and between
1635 and 1642 built the church of the Sorbonne, in which he is
now buried.
On the question of the relations between the temporal and the
spiritual powers, Richelieu really professed the doctrine called
Duvalism after the theologian Duval, who admitted at the same
time the supreme power of the pope and the supreme power of the
king and the divine right of both. In the dissensions between
Rome and the Gallicans he most frequently acted as mediator.
When in 1626 a book by the Jesuit Sanctarel appeared in Paris,
affirming the right of the popes to depose kings for
wrong-doing, heresy, or incapacity, it was burned in the Place
de Greve; Father Coton and the three superiors of the Jesuits
houses summoned before the Parlement were forced to repudiate
the work. The enemies ofthe Jesuits wished immediately to create
a new disturbance on the occasion of the publication of the
"Somme theologique des verites apostoliques capitales de la
religion chretienne", by Father Garasse, but Richelieu opposed
the continued agitation. It was, however, renewed at the end of
1626, owing to a thesis of the Dominican Tetefort, which
maintained that the Decretals formed part of the Scripture.
Richelieu again strove to allay feeling, and in a discourse
(while still affirming that the king held his kingdom from God
alone) declared that "the king cannot make an article of faith
unless this article has been so declared by the Church in her
oecumenical councils". Subsequently, Richelieu gave satisfaction
to the pope when on 7 December,1 629, he obtained a retraction
from the Gallican Edmond Richer, syndic of the theological
faculty, who submitted his book "La puissance ecclesiastique et
politique" to the judgment of the pope. Nine years alter,
however, Richelieu's struggles against the resistance offered by
the French clergy to taxes led him to assume an attitude more
deliberately Gallican. Contrary to the theories which he had
maintained in his discourse of 1614 he considered, now that he
was a minister, that the needs of the State constituted a case
of force majeure, which should oblige the clergy to submit to
all the fiscal exigencies of the civil power. As early as 1625
the assembly of the clergy, tired of the incessant demands of
the Government for money, had decreed that no deputy could vote
supplies without having first received full powers on the
subject; Richelieu, contesting this principle, declared that the
needs of the State were actual, while those of the Church were
chimerical and arbitrary.
In 1638 the struggle between the State and the clergy on the
subject of taxes became critical, and Richelieu, to uphold his
claims, enlisted the aid of the brothers Pierre and Jacques
Dupuy, who about the middle of 1638 published "Les libertes de
l'eglise gallicane". This book established the independence of
the Gallican Church in opposition to Rome only to reduce it into
servile submission to the temporal power. The clergy and the
nuncio complained; eighteen bishops assembled at the house of
Cardinal de la Rouchefoucald, and denounced to their colleagues
this "work of the devil". Richelieu then exaggerated his fiscal
exigencies in regard to the clergy; an edict of 16 April, 1639,
stipulated that ecclesiastics and communities were incapable of
possessing landed property in France, that the king could compel
them to surrender their possessions and unite them to his
domains, but that he would allow them to retain what they had in
consideration of certain indemnities which should be calculated
in going back to the year 1520. In Oct., 1639, after the murder
of an equerry of Marshal d'Estrees, the French Ambassador,
Estrees declared the rights of the people violated. Richelieu
refused to receive the nuncio (October, 1639); a decree of the
royal council, 22 December, restrained the powers of the
pontifical Briefs, and even the canonist Marca proposed to break
the Concordat and to hold a national council at which Richelieu
was to have been made patriarch. Precisely at this date
Richelieu had a whole series of grievances against Rome: Urban
VIII had refused successively to name him Legate of the Holy See
in France, Legate of Avignon, and coadjutor to the Bishop of
Trier; he had refused the purple to Father Joseph, and had been
opposed the annulment of the marriage of Gaston d'Orleans. But
Richelieu, however furious he was, did not wish to carry things
to extremes. After a certain number of polemics on the subject
of the taxes to be levied on the clergy, the ecclesiastical
assembly of Mantes in 1641 accorded to the Government (which was
satisfied therewith) five and a half millions, and Richelieu, to
restore quiet, accepted the dedication of Marca's book "La
concorde du sacerdoce et de l'empire", in which certain
exceptions were taken to Dupuy's book. At the same time the
sending of Mazarin as envoy to France by Urban VIII, and the
presentation to him of the cardinal's hat put an end to the
differences between Richelieu and the Holy See.
Upon the whole, Richelieu's policy was to preserve a just mean
between the parliamentary Gallicans and the Ultramontanes. "In
such matters", he wrote in his political testament, "one must
believe neither the people of the palace, who ordinarily measure
the power of the king by the shape of his crown, which, being
round, has no end, nor those who, in the excesses of an
indiscreet zeal, proclaim themselves openly as partisans of
Rome". One may believe that Pierre de Marca's book was inspired
by him and reproduces his ideas. According to this book the
liberties of the Gallican Church have two foundations: (1) the
recognition of the primacy and the sovereign authority ofthe
Church of Rome, a primacy consisting in the right to make
general laws, to judge without appeal, and to be judged neither
by bishops nor by councils; (2) the sovereign right of the kings
which knows no superior in temporal affairs. It is to be noted
that Marca does not give the superiority of a council over the
pope as a foundation of the Gallican liberties. (For Richelieu's
work in Canada see article CANADA.) In 1636 Richelieu founded
the Academie Franc,aise. He had great literary pretensions, and
had several mediocre plays of his own composition produced in a
theatre belonging to him. With a stubbornness inexplicable
to-day Voltaire foolishly denied that Richelieu's "Testament
politique" was authentic; the researches of M. Hanotaux have
proved its authenticity, and given the proper value to admirable
chapters such as the chapter entitled, "Le conseil du Prince",
into which Richelieu, says M. Hanotaux, "has put all his soul
and his genius". [For Richelieu's "Memoires" see HARLAY, FAMILY
OF: (2) Achille de Harlay.]
Besides the works indicated in the articles LECLERC DU TREMBLAY
and MARIA DE' MEDICI the following may be consulted: Maximes
d'etat et fragments politiques du cardinal de Richelieu, ed.
HANTAUX (Paris, 1880); Lettres, instructions diplomatiques et
papiers d'etat du cardinal de Richelieu, ed. AVERNEL (8 vols.,
Paris, 1853-77); Memoires du cardinal de Richelieu, ed. HORRIC
DE BEAUCAIRE, I (Paris, 1908); LAIR, LAVOLLEE, BRUEL, GABRIEL DE
MUN, and LECESTRE, Rapports et notices sur l'edition des
Memoires du cardinal de Richelieu preparee pour la societe de
l'histoire de France (3 fasc., Paris, 1905-07); HANOTAUX, Hist.
du cardinal de Richelieu (2 tomes in 3 vols., Paris, 1893-1903),
extends to 1624; CAILLET, L'Administration en France sous le
ministere du cardinal de Richelieu (2 vols., Paris, 1863);
D'AVENEL, Richelieu et la monarchie absolue (4 vols., Paris,
1880-7); IDEM, La noblesse francaise sous Richelieu (Paris,
1901); IDEM, Pretres, soldats et juges sous Richelieu (Paris,
1907); LACROIX, Richelieu a Lucon, sa jeunese, son episcopat
(Paris, 1890); GELEY, Fancan et la politique de Richelieu de
1617 a 1627 (Paris, 1884); DE ROCHEMONTEIX, Nicholaus Caussin,
confesseur de Louis XIII, et le cardinal de Richelieu (Paris,
1911); PERRAUD, Le cardinal de Richelieu eveque, theologien et
protecteur des lettres (Autun, 1882); VALENTIN, Cardinalis
Richelieu scriptor ecclesiasticus (Toulouse, 1900); LODGE,
Richelieu (London, 1896); PERKINS, Richelieu and the Growth of
French Power (New York, 1900).
GEORGES GOYAU
Diocese of Richmond
Diocese of Richmond
(RICHMONDENSIS.)
Suffragan of Baltimore, established 11 July, 1820, comprises the
State of Virginia, except the Counties of Accomac and
Northampton (Diocese of Wilmington); and Bland, Buchanan,
Carroll, Craig (partly), Dickinson, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, Lee,
Montgomery, Pulaski, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell,
Washington, Wise, and Wythe (Diocese of Wheeling); and in the
State of West Virginia, the Counties of Berkeley, Grant,
Hampshire, Hardy, Jefferson, Mineral, Morgan, and Pendleton. It
embraces 31,518 square miles in Virginia and 3290 square miles
in West Virginia. Originally it included also the territory of
the present Diocese of Wheeling, created 23 July, 1850.
Colonial Period
In the summer of 1526 a Spanish Catholic settlement was made in
Virginia on the very spot (according to Ecija, the
pilot-in-chief of Florida) where, in 1607, eighty-one years
later, the English founded the settlement of Jamestown. Lucas
Vasques de Ayllon, one of the judges of the island of San
Domingo, received from the King of Spain, 12 June, 1523, a
patent empowering him to explore the coast for 800 leagues,
establish a settlement within three years and Christianize the
natives. In June, 1526, Ayllon sailed from Puerto de la Plata,
San Domingo, with three vessels, 600 persons of both sexes,
horses and supplies. The Dominicans Antonio de Montesinos and
Antonio de Cervantes, with Brother Peter de Estrada, accompanied
the expedition. Entering the Capes at the Chesapeake, and
ascending a river (the James), he landed at Guandape, which he
named St. Michael. Buildings were constructed and the Holy
Sacrifice offered in a chapel, the second place of Catholic
worship on American soil. Ayllon died of fever, 18 Oct., 1526.
The rebellion of the settlers and hostility of the Indians
caused Francisco Gomez, the next in command, to abandon the
settlement in the spring of 1527, when he set sail for San
Domingo in two vessels, one of which foundered. Of the party
only 150 reached their destination.
A second expedition sent by Menendez, the Governor of Florida
and nominal Governor of Virginia, settled on the Rappahannock
River at a point called Axacan, 10 Sept., 1570. It consisted of
Fathers Segura, Vice-Provincial of the Jesuits, and Luis de
Quiros, six Jesuit brothers, and a few friendly Indians. A log
building served as chapel and home. Through the treachery of Don
Luis de Velasco, an Indian pilot of Spanish name, Father Quiros
and Brothers Solis and Mendez were slain by the Indians, 14
Feb., 1571. Four days later were martyred Father Segura,
Brothers Linares, Redondo, Gabriel, Gomez, and Sancho Zevalles.
Menendez, several months later, sailed for Axacan, where he had
eight of the murderers hanged; they being converted before death
by Father John Rogel, a Jesuit missionary.
Attempts to found Catholic settlements in Virginia were made by
Lord Baltimore in 1629, and Captain George Brent in 1687. In the
spring of 1634 Father John Altham, a Jesuit companion of Father
Andrew White, the Maryland missionary, laboured amongst some of
the Virginia tribes on the south side of the Potomac. Stringent
laws were soon enacted in Virginia against Catholics. In 1687
Fathers Edmonds and Raymond were arrested at Norfolk for
exercising their priestly functions. During the last quarter of
the eighteenth century the few Catholic settlers at Aquia Creek,
near the Potomac, were attended by Father John Carroll and other
Jesuit missionaries from Maryland.
American Period
Rev. Jean Dubois, afterwards third Bishop of New York,
accompanied by a few French priests and with letters of
introduction from Lafayette to several prominent Virginia
families, came to Norfolk in August, 1791, where he laboured a
few months, and probably left the priests who came with him.
Proceeding to Richmond towards the end of the year, he offered
in the House of Delegates, by invitation of the General
Assembly, the first Mass ever said in the Capital City. His
successors at Richmond, with interruptions, were the Revs. T.C.
Mongrand, Xavier Michel, John McElroy, John Baxter, John
Mahoney, James Walsh, Thomas Hore, and Fathers Horner and
Schreiber.
Tradition tells us that at an early date, probably at the time
of the Declaration of Independence, Alexandria had a log chapel
with an unknown resident priest. Rev. John Thayer of Boston was
stationed there in 1794. Rev. Francis Neale, who in 1796
constructed at Alexandria a brick church, erected fourteen years
later a more suitable church where Fathers Kohlmann, Enoch, and
Benedict Joseph Fenwick, afterwards second Bishop of Boston,
frequently officiated. About 1796 Rev. James Bushe began the
erection of a church at Norfolk. His successors were the Very
Rev. Leonard Neale, afterwards Archbishop of Baltimore (see
Baltimore, Archdiocese of), Revs. Michael Lacy, Christopher
Delaney, Joseph Stokes, Samuel Cooper, J. VanHorsigh, and A.L.
Hitzelberger.
Bishops of Richmond
(1) Right Rev. Patrick Kelly, D.D., consecrated first Bishop of
Richmond, 24 Aug., 1820, came to reside at Norfolk, where the
Catholics were much more numerous than at Richmond, 19 Jan.,
1821. The erection of Virginia into a diocese had been premature
and was accordingly opposed by the Archbishop of Baltimore.
Because of factions and various other difficulties, Bishop Kelly
soon petitioned Rome to be relieved of his charge. He left
Virginia in July, 1822, having been transferred to the See of
Waterford and Lismore, where he died, 8 Oct., 1829. Archbishop
Marechal of Baltimore was appointed administrator of the
diocese.
Rev. Timothy O'Brien, who came as pastor to Richmond in 1832,
did more for Catholicism during his eighteen years' labour than
any other missionary, excepting the Bishops of the See. In 1834
he built St. Peter's Church, afterwards the cathedral, and
founded St. Joseph's Female Academy and Orphan Asylum, bringing
as teachers three Sisters of Charity.
(2) The Right Rev. Richard Vincent Whelan, D.D., consecrated 21
March, 1841, established the same year, on the outskirts of
Richmond, St. Vincent's Seminary and College, discontinued in
1846. Leaving Rev. Timothy O'Brien at St. Peter's, Richmond, the
Bishop took up his residence at the seminary, and acted as
president. In 1842 Bishop Whelan dedicated St. Joseph's Church,
Petersburg, and St. Patrick's Church, Norfolk, and the following
year that of St.Francis at Lynchburg. In 1846 he built a church
at Wheeling and, two years later, founded at Norfolk St.
Vincent's Female Orphan Asylum. Wheeling was made a separate
see, 23 July, 1850, and to it was transferred Bishop Whelan.
(3) Right Rev. John McGill, D.D., consecrated 10 Nov., 1850, was
present in Rome in 1854 when the Dogma of the Immaculate
Conception was proclaimed. By pen and voice he opposed
Knownothingism. In 1855 Bishop McGill convened the First
Diocesan Synod. During the yellow fever plague of the same year,
Rev. Matthew O'Keefe of Norfolk and Rev. Francis Devlin of
Portsmouth won renown; the latter dying a martyr to priestly
duty. In 1856 St. Vincent's Hospital, Norfolk, was founded.
Alexandria, formerly in the Baltimore archdiocese as part of the
District of Columbia, but ceded back to Virginia, was annexed to
the Richmond diocese, 15 Aug., 1858. In 1860 the bishop
transferred St. Mary's German Church, Richmond, to the
Benedictines. During the Civil War Bishop McGill wrote two
learned works, "The True Church Indicated to the Inquirer", and
"Our Faith, the Victory", republished as "The Creed of
Catholics". The bishop established at Richmond the Sisters of
the Visitation, and at Alexandria the Sisters of the Holy Cross.
He also took part in the Vatican Council. Bishop McGill died at
Richmond, 14 January, 1872.
(4) Right Rev. James Gibbons, D.D. (afterwards archbishop and
cardinal), consecrated titular Bishop of Adramyttum to organize
North Carolina into a vicariate, 16 Aug., 1868, was appointed
Bishop of Richmond, 30 July, 1872. He established at Richmond
the Little Sisters of the Poor, and St. Peter's Boys' Academy.
Erecting new parishes, churches, and schools, making constant
diocesan visitations, frequently preaching to large
congregations of both Catholics and non-Catholics, Bishop
Gibbons, during his short rule of five years, accomplished in
the diocese a vast amount of religious good. Made coadjutor
Bishop of Baltimore, 29 May, 1877, he succeeded Archbishop
Bayley in that see, 3 Oct., 1877.
(5) Right Rev. John Joseph Keane, D.D. (afterwards archbishop),
consecrated, 25 Aug., 1878. Gifted with ever-ready and magnetic
eloquence, Bishop Keane drew great numbers of people to hear his
inspiring discourses. He held the Second Diocesan Synod in 1886,
and introduced into the diocese the Josephites and the Xaverian
Brothers. Bishop Keane was appointed first Rector of the
Catholic University, Washington, 12 Aug., 1888, created titular
Archbishop of Damascus, 9 Jan., 1897, and transferred to the See
of Dubuque, 24 July, 1900.
(6) Right Rev. Augustine Van De Vyver, D.D., consecrated, 29
Oct., 1889, began an able and vigorous rule. On 3 June, 1903, he
publicly received the Most Rev. Diomede Falconio, Apostolic
Delegate, who the following day laid the cornerstone of the new
Sacred Heart Cathedral, one of the most artistic edifices in the
country, designed by Joseph McGuire, architect, of New York. A
handsome bishop's house and a pastoral residence adjoin the
cathedral. The latter was solemnly conscrated by Mgr. Falconio
on 29 Nov., 1906. The event was the most imposing Catholic
ceremony in the history of the diocese. Besides Cardinal
Gibbons, and the Apostolic Delegate, there were present 18
archbishops and bishops. Bishop Van De Vyver convened a
quasi-synod, 12 Nov., 1907, which approved the decrees of the
Second Synod and enacted new and needed legislation. In 1907 the
Knights of Columbus held at the Jamestown Exposition their
national convention and jubilee celebration, participated in by
the Apostolic Delegate, and several archbishops and bishops;
while the following year the St. Vincent de Paul Society held a
similar celebration in Richmond. In June, 1909, St. Peter's
(Richmond) handsome new residence and the adjoining home of the
McGill Union and the Knights of Columbus were completed, at a
total cost of about $50,000. In the following autumn St. Peter's
Church (the old cathedral) celebrated the diamond jubilee of its
existence. With it, either as bishops or as priests, are
indelibly linked the names of Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishops
Keane and Janssens, and Bishops Van De Vyver, Whelan, McGill,
Becker, Kelley and O'Connell of San Francisco. Most Rev. John J.
Kain, deceased archbishop of St. Louis, had also been a priest
of the diocese. Bishop Van De Vyver introduced into the diocese
the Fathers of the Holy Ghost; additional Benedictine and
Josephite Fathers and Xaverian Brothers; the Christian Brothers;
additional Sisters of Charity; the Benedictine and Franciscan
Sisters; Sisters of Charity of Nazareth, of the Blessed
Sacrament and of the Perpetual Adoration. Under his regime have
been founded 12 new parishes, 32 churches, 3 colleges, 4
industrial schools, 2 orphan asylums, 1 infant asylum
(coloured), and many parochial schools.
Notable Benefactors
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Fortune Ryan, of New York, the former
donating, the latter furnishing, the imposing Sacred Heart
Cathedral (nearly $500,000), together with other notable
benefactions. Mrs.Ryan has built churches, schools, and
religious houses in various parts of the state. Other generous
benefactors were Right Rev. Bernard McQuaid, D.D., Joseph
Gallego, John P. Matthews, William S. Caldwell, Mark Downey, and
John Pope.
Statistics (1911)
Secular priests, 50; Benedictines, 10; Josephites, 6; Holy Ghost
Fathers, 2; Brothers, Xaverian, 35; Christian, 12; Sisters of
Charity, 60; of St. Benedict, 50; Visitation Nuns, 23; Sisters
of Charity of Nazareth, Kentucky, 20; of the Holy Cross, 20;
Little Sisters of the Poor, 18; Sisters of the Blessed
Sacrament, 18; of St. Francis, 12; of Perpetual Adoration, 10;
parishes with resident priests, 35; msisions with churches, 48;
colleges, 3 (1 coloured), academies, 9; parochial schools, 26;
industrial schools, 4 (2 coloured); orphan asylums, 4; infant
asylums, 1 (coloured); young people attending Catholic
institutions, 7500; home for aged, 1 (inmates, 200); Catholic
Hospital, 1 (yearly patients, 3000).
Catholic Societies
Priests' Clerical Fund Association; Eucharistic League; Holy
Name; St. Vincent dePaul; League of Good Shepherd; boys' and
girls' sodalities; tabernacle, altar, and sanctuary societies;
women's benevolent and beneficial; fraternal and social, such as
Knights of Columbus, Hibernians, and flourishing local
societies. Of parishes there are one each of Germans, Italians,
and Bohemians, and 4 for the coloured people. Catholic
population, 41,000. The causes of growth are principally natural
increase and conversions, there being little Catholic
immigration into the diocese.
Magri, The Catholic Church in the City and Diocese of Richmond
(Richmond, Virginia, 1906); Parks, Catholic Missions in Virginia
(Richmond, 1850); Keiley, Memoranda (Norfolk, Virginia, 1874);
Proceedings of the Catholic Benevolent Union (Norfolk, 1875);
The Metropolitan catholic Almanac (Baltimore, 1841-61); Catholic
Almanac and Directory (New York, 1865-95); Catholic Directory
(Milwaukee, 1895-9); Official Catholic Directory (Milwaukee,
1900-11); Hughes, The History of the Society of Jesus in North
America, Colonial and Federal (London, 1907); Shea, The History
of the Catholic Church in the United States (Akron, Ohio, 1890);
foreign references cited by Shea (I, bk II, i,106, 107, 149,
150); Navarette, Real Cedula que contiene el asiento capitulado
con Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon; Coleccion de Viages y
Descubrimientos (Madrid, 1829), ii, 153, 156; Fernandez,
Historia Ecclesiastica de Nuestros Tiempos (Toledo, 1611);
Quiros, Letter of 12 Sept., 1570; Rogel, Letter of 9 Dec., 1520;
Barcia, Ensayo Cronologico, 142-6; Tanner, Societas Militaris,
447-51.
F. JOSEPH MAGRI
Ricoldo Da Monte di Croce
Ricaldo da Monte di Croce
(PENNINI.)
Born at Florence about 1243; d. there 31 October, 1320. After
studying in various great European schools, he became a
Dominican, 1267; was a professor in several convents of Tuscany
(1272-99), made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land (1288), and then
travelled for many years as a missionary in western Asia, having
his chief headquarters at Bagdad. He returned to Florence before
1302, and was chosen to high offices in his order. His
"Itinerarium" (written about 1288-91; published in the original
Latin at Leipzig; 1864; in Italian at Florence, 1793; in French
at Paris, 1877) was intended as a guide-book for missionaries,
and is an interesting description of the Oriental countries
visited by him. The "Epistolae de Perditione Acconis" are five
letters in the form of lamentations over the fall of Ptolemais
(written about 1292, published at Paris, 1884). Ricoldo's best
known work is the "Contra Legem Sarracenorum", written at
Bagdad, which has been very popular as a polemical source
against Mohammedanism, and has been often edited (first
published at Seville, 1500). The "Christianae Fidei Confessio
facta Sarracenis" (printed at Basle, 1543) is attributed to
Ricoldo, and was probably written about the same time as the
above mentioned works. Other works are: "Contra errores
Judaeorum" (MS. at Florence); "Libellus contra nationes
orientales" (MSS. at Florence and Paris); "Contra Sarracenos et
Alcoranum" (MS. at Paris); "De variis religionibus" (MS. at
Turin). Very probably the last three works were written after
his return to Europe. Ricoldo is also known to have written two
theological works--a defence of the doctrines of St. Thomas (in
collaboration with John of Pistoia, about 1285) and a commentary
on the "Libri sententiarum" (before 1288). Ricoldo began a
translation of the Koran about 1290, but it is not known whether
this work was completed.
MANDONNET in Revue Biblique (1893), 44-61, 182-202, 584-607;
ECHARD-QUETIF, Script. Ord. Proed., I, 506; TOURON, Hist. des
Hommes illus. de l'ordre de St. Dom., I, 759-63; MURRAY,
Discoveries and Travels in Asia, I, 197.
J.A. MCHUGH
Riemenschneider
Tillmann Riemenschneider
One of the most important of Frankish sculptors, b. at Osterode
am Harz in or after 1460; d. at Wuerzburg, 1531. In 1483 he was
admitted into the Guild of St. Luke at Wuerzburg, where he
worked until his death. In the tombstone of the Ritter von
Grumbach he still adheres to the Gothic style, but in his works
for the Marienkapelle at Wuerzburg he adopts the Renaissance
style, while retaining reminiscences of earlier art. For the
south entrance he carved, besides an annunciation and a
representation of Christ as a gardener, the afterwards renowned
statues of Adam and Eve, the heads of which are of special
importance. There also he showed his gift of depicting character
in the more than life-size statues of Christ, the Baptist, and
the Twelve Apostles for the buttresses. Elsewhere indeed we seek
in vain for the merits of rounded sculpture. He had a special
talent for the noble representation of female saints (cf. for
example, Sts. Dorothea and Margareta in the same chapel, and the
Madonna in the Muensterkirche). A small Madonna (now in the
municipal museum at Frankfort) is perfect both in expression and
drapery. Besides other works for the above-mentioned churches
and a relief with the "Vierzehn Nothelfer" for the hospital (St.
Burkhard), he carved for the cathedral of Wuerzburg a tabernacle
reaching to the ceiling, two episcopal tombs, and a colossal
cross--all recognized as excellent works by those familiar with
the peculiar style of the master. Riemenschneider's masterpiece
is the tomb of Emperor Henry II in the Cathedral of Bamberg; the
recumbent forms of the emperor and his spouse are ideal, while
the sides of the tomb are adorned with fine scenes from their
lives. The figures instinct with life, the drapery, and the
expression of sentiment, are all of equal beauty. Among his
representations of the "Lament over Christ", those of
Heidingsfeld and Maidbrunn, in spite of some defects, are
notable works; resembling the former, but still more pleasing,
is a third in the university collection. The defects in many of
his works are probably to be referred for the most part to his
numerous apprentices. There are a great number of other works by
him in various places, e.g. a beautiful group of the Crucifixion
in the Darmstadt Museum, another at Volkach am Main representing
Our Lady surrounded by a rosary with scenes from her life in
relief and being crowned by angels playing music--the picture is
suspended from the roof.
There is a second Meister Tillmann Riemenschneider, who carved
the Virgin's altar in Creglingen. This bears so close a
resemblance to the works of the younger "Master Dill", that
recently many believed it should be referred to him; in that
case, however, he would have executed one of his best works as a
very young man.
BODE, Gesch. der deutschen Plastik (Berlin, 1885); WEBER, Leben
u. Wirken T. Riemenschneiders (2nd ed., Wuerzburg, 1888);
TONNERS, Leben u. Werke T. Riemenschneiders (Strasburg, 1900);
ADELMANN in Walhalla, VI (1910).
G. GIETMANN
Cola di Rienzi
Cola di Rienzi
(i.e., NICOLA, son of Lorenzo)
A popular tribune and extraordinary historical figure. His
father was an innkeeper at Rome in the vicinity of the
Trastevere; though it was believed that he was really the son of
the Emperor Henry VII. His childhood and youth were passed at
Anagni, with some relatives to whom he was sent on the death of
his mother. Though he was thus brought up in the country he
succeeded in acquiring a knowledge of letters and of Latin, and
devoted himself to a study of the history of ancient Rome in the
Latin authors, Livy, Valerius Maximus, Cicero, Seneca, Boethius,
and the poets. When his father died he returned to Rome and
practised as a notary. The sight of the remains of the former
greatness of Rome only increased his admiration for the city and
the men described in his favourite authors. Contemplating the
condition in which Rome then was in the absence of the popes,
torn by the factions of the nobles who plundered on all sides
and shed innocent blood, he conceived a desire of restoring the
justice and splendour of former days. His plans became more
definite and settled when his brother was slain in a brawl
between the Orsini and the Colonna. Thenceforth he thought only
of the means of breaking the power of the barons. To accomplish
this he had first to win the favour of the populace by upholding
the cause of the oppressed.
In consequence of this and on account of the eloquence with
which he spoke in Latin, he was sent to Avignon in 1343 to
Clement VI, by the captain of the people, to ask him to return
to Rome and grant the great jubilee every five years. Cola
explained to the pope the miserable condition of Rome. Clement
was much impressed, and appointed him to the office of notary
(secretary) of the Camera Capitolina, in which position he could
gain a better knowledge of the misfortunes of the city. Cola
then by his public discourses and private conversations prepared
the people; a conspiracy was formed, and on 19 May, 1347, he
summoned the populace to assemble the following day in the
Campidoglio. There Cola explained his plans and read a new
democratic constitution which, among other things, ordained the
establishment of a civic militia. The people conferred absolute
power on him; but Cola at first contented himself with the title
of tribune of the people; later, however, he assumed the
bombastic titles of Candidatus Spiritus Sancti, Imperator Orbis,
Zelator Italiae, Amator Orbis et Tribunus Augustus (candidate of
the Holy Spirit, emperor of the world, lover of Italy, of the
world, august tribune). He was wise enough to select a
colleague, the pope's vicar, Raymond, Bishop of Orvieto. The
success of the new regime was wonderful. The most powerful
barons had to leave the city; the others swore fealty to the
popular government. An era of peace and justice seemed to have
come. The pope, on learning what had happened, regretted that he
had not been consulted, but gave Cola the title and office of
Rector, to be exercised in conjunction with the Bishop of
Orvieto. His name was heard everywhere, princes had recourse to
him in their disputes, the sultan fortified his ports.
Cola then thought of reestablishing the liberty and independence
of Italy and of Rome, by restoring the Roman Empire with an
Italian emperor. In August, 1347, two hundred deputies of the
Italian cities assembled at his request. Italy was declared
free, and all those who had arrogated a lordship to themselves
were declared fallen from power; the right of the people to
elect the emperor was asserted. Louis the Bavarian and Charles
of Bohemia were called upon to justify their usurpation of the
imperial title. Cola flattered himself secretly with the hope of
becoming emperor; but his high opinion of himself proved his
ruin. He was a dreamer rather than a man of action; he lacked
many qualities for the exercise of good government, especially
foresight and the elements of political prudence. He had formed
a most puerile concept of the empire. He surrounded himself with
Asiatic luxury, to pay for which he had to impose new taxes;
thereupon the enthusiasm of the people, weary of serving a
theatrical emperor, vanished. The barons perceived this, and
forgetting for the moment their mutual discord, joined together
against their common enemy. In vain the bell summoned the people
to arms in the Campidoglio. No one stirred. Cola had driven out
the barons, but he had not thought of reducing them to inaction;
on the contrary he had rendered them more hostile by his many
foolish and humiliating acts. Lacking all military knowledge he
could offer no serious resistance to their attacks. The
discontent of the people increased; the Bishop of Orvieto, the
other Rector of Rome, who had already protested against what had
occurred at the convention of the Italian deputies, abandoned
the city; the pope repudiated Cola in a Bull. Thus deserted, and
not believing himself safe, he took refuge in the Castle of
S.Angelo, and three days later (18 Dec., 1347) the barons
returned in triumph to restore things to their former condition.
Cola fortunately succeeded in escaping. He sought refuge with
the Spiritual Franciscans living in the hermitages of Monte
Maiella. But the plague of 1348, the presence of bands of
adventurers and the jubilee of 1350 had increased the mysticism
of the people and still more of the Spirituals. One of the
latter, Fra Angelo, told Rienzi that it was now the proper
moment to think of the common weal, to co-operate in the
restoration of the empire and in the purification of the Church:
all of which had been predicted by Joachim of Flora, the
celebrated Calabrian abbot, and that he ought to give his
assistance. Cola betook himself thence to Charles IV at Prague
(1350), who imprisoned him, either as a madman or as a heretic.
After two years Cola was sent at the request of the pope to
Avignon, where through the intercession of Petrarch, his
admirer, though now disillusioned, he was treated better. When
Innocent VI sent Cardinal Albornoz into Italy (at the beginning
of 1353) he allowed Cola di Rienzi to accompany him. The Romans,
who had fallen back into their former state of anarchy, invited
him to return, and Albornoz consented to appoint him senator
(sindaco) of Rome. On 1 Aug., 1354, Rienzi entered Rome in
triumph. But the new government did not last long. His luxury
and revelry, followed by the inevitable taxation, above all the
unjust killing of several persons (among whom was Fra Moriale, a
brigand, in the service of Cola), provoked the people to fury.
On 8 Oct., 1354, the cry of "Death to Rienzi the traitor!" rose
in the city. Cola attempted to flee, but was recognized and
slain, and his corpse dragged through the streets of the city.
Cola represented, one might say, the death agony of the Guelph
(papal-national-democratic) idea and the rise of the classical
(imperial and aesthetic) idea of the Renaissance.
Vita Nicolai Laurentii in MURATORI, Antiquitates; Vita Nicolai
Laurentii, ed. DEL Re (Florence, 1854); GABRIELLI, Epistolario
de Cola Rienzo (Rome, 1890); PAPENCORDT, Cola de Rienzo und
seine Zeit (Hamburg, 1841); RODOCANACHI, Cola di Rienzo (Paris,
1888).
U. BENIGNI
Rieti
Rieti
(REATINA).
Diocese in Central Italy, immediately subject to the Holy See.
The city is situated in the valley of the River Velino, which,
on account of the calcareous deposits that accumulate in it,
grows shallower and imperils the city, so that even in ancient
days it was necessary to construct canals and outlets, like that
of Marius Curius Dentatus (272 B.C.) which, repaired and
enlarged by Clement VIII, has produced the magnificent waterfall
of the Velino, near Terni. The city, which was founded by the
Pelasgians, was the chief town of the Sabines, and became later
a Roman municipium and prefecture. After the Longobard invasion
it was the seat of a "gastaldo", dependent on the Duchy of
Spoleto. It was presented to the Holy See by Otto I in 962; in
1143, after a long siege, it was destroyed by King Roger of
Naples. It was besieged again in 1210 by Otto of Brunswick when
forcing his way into the Kingdom of Naples. In the thirteenth
century the popes took refuge there on several occasions, and in
1288 it witnessed the coronation of Charles II of Naples; later
an Apostolic delegate resided at Rieti. In 1860, by the
disloyalty of a delegate, it was occupied by the Italian troops
without resistance. Rieti was the birthplace of Blessed Colomba
(1501); in the sixth century it contained an Abbey of St.
Stephen; the body of St. Baldovino, Cistercian, founder of the
monastery of Sts. Matthew and Pastor (twelfth century) is
venerated in the cathedral. Near Rieti is Greccio, where St.
Francis set up the first Christmas crib. The cathedral is in
Lombard style, with a crypt dating from the fourth or fifth
century. It should be remarked that in medieval documents there
is frequent confusion between Reatinus (Rieti), Aretinus
(Arezzo), and Teatinus (Chieti). The first known Bishop of Rieti
is Ursus (499); St. Gregory mentions Probus and Albinus (sixth
century). The names of many bishops in the Longobard period are
known. Later we meet with Dodonus (1137), who repaired the
damage done by King Roger; Benedict, who in 1184 officiated at
the marriage of Queen Constance of Naples and Henry VI;
Rainaldo, a Franciscan (1249), restorer of discipline, which
work was continued by Tommaso (1252); Pietro Guerra (1278), who
had Andrea Pisano erect the episcopal palace with materials
taken from the ancient amphitheatre of Vespasian; Lodovico
Teodonari (1380), murdered while engaged in Divine service, on
account of his severity, which deed was cruelly punished by
Boniface IX; Angelo Capranica (1450), later a cardinal; Cardinal
Pompeo Colonna (1508), who for rebellion against Julius II and
Clement VII was twice deprived of his cardinalitial dignity;
Scipione Colonna (1520), his nephew, took part in the revolt
against Clement VII in 1528, and was killed in an encounter with
Amico of Ascoli, Abbot of Farfa; Marianus Victorius (1572, for a
few days), a distinguished writer and petrologist; Giorgio
Bolognetti (1639), restored the episcopal palace and was
distinguished for his charity; Gabrielle Ferretti (1827), later
a cardinal, a man of great charity. At present the diocese
contains 60 parishes, 142,100 inhabitants, 250 secular priests,
7 religious houses with 63 priests, 15 houses of nuns; 2
educational establishments for boys, and 4 for girls.
CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia, V; DE SANCTIS, Notizie stor
iche di Rieti (Rieti, 1887); MARONI, Commentarii de Ecclesia
Reatina (Rome, 1753). U. BENIGNI
Abbey of Rievaulx
Abbey of Rievaulx
(RIEVALL.)
Thurston, Archbishop of York, was very anxious to have a
monastery of the newly founded and fervent order of Cistercians
in his diocese; and so, at his invitation, St. Bernard of
Clairvaux sent a colony of his monks, under the leadership of
Abbot William, to make the desired foundation. After some delay
Walter Espec became their founder and chief benefactor,
presenting them with a suitable estate, situated in a wild and
lonely spot, in the valley of the rivulet Rie (from whence the
abbey derived its name), and surrounded by precipitous hills, in
Blakemore, near Helmesley. The community took possession of the
ground in 1131, and began the foundation, the first of their
order in Yorkshire. The church and abbey, as is the case with
all monasteries of the order, were dedicated to the Blessed
Virgin Mary. At first their land being crude and uncultivated,
they suffered much until, after a number of years, their first
benefactor again came to their assistance and, later on, joined
their community. Their land, also, through their incessant
labours, eventually became productive, so that, with more
adequate means of subsistence, they were able to devote their
energies to the completion of church and monastic buildings,
though these were finished only after a great lapse of time, on
account of their isolation and the fact that the monastery was
never wealthy. The constructions were carried on section by
section, permanent edifices succeeding those that were temporary
after long intervals. The final buildings, however, as attested
by the magnificent, though melancholy, ruins yet remaining, were
completed on a grand scale.
Within a very few years after its foundation the community
numbered three hundred members, and was by far the most
celebrated monastery in England; many others sprang from it, the
most important of them being Melrose, the first Cistecian
monastery built in Scotland. Rievaulx early became a billiant
centre of learning and holiness; chief amongst its lights shone
St. Aelred, its third abbot (1147-67), who from his sweetness of
character and depth of learning was called Bernardo prope par.
He had been, before his entrance into the cloister, a most dear
friend and companion of St. David, King of Scotland. History
gives us but scant details of the later life at Rievaulx. At the
time of its suppression and confiscation by Henry VIII the
abbot, Rowland Blyton, with twenty-three religious composed its
community. The estates of this ancient abbey are now in the
possession of the Duncombe family.
MANRIQUE, Annales Cistercienses (Lyons, 1642); MARTENE AND
DURAND, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, IV (Paris, 1717);
HENRIQUEZ, Phoenix reviviscens (Brussels, 1626); DUGDALE,
Monasticon Anglicanum, V (London, 1817-30); Cartularium abbatiae
de Rievalle in Surtees' Soc. Publ. (London, 1889); St. Aelred,
Abbot of Rievaulx (London, 1845); OXFORD, Ruins of Fountains
Abbey (London, 1910); HODGES, Fountains Abbey (New York, 1904).
EDMOND M. OBRECHT
Caspar Riffel
Caspar Riffel
Historian, b. at Budesheim, Bingen, Germany, 19 Jan., 1807, d.
at Mainz, 15 Dec., 1856. He studied under Klee at Mainz and Bonn
and under Moehler at Tuebingen. After his ordination to the
priesthood, 18 Dee., 1830, he was named assistant priest at
Bingen. In 1835 he was appointed to a parish at Giessen, and to
the chair of moral theology in the local theological faculty.
His transfer to the professorship in Church history followed in
1837. The publication of the first volume of his Church history
in 1841 aroused a storm of indignation among Protestants, to
whom his accurate though not flattering account of the
Reformation was distasteful. The Hessian Government hastened to
pension the fearless teacher (19 Nov., 1842). This measure
caused intense indignation among the diocesan Catholic clergy,
who denounced the Protestant atmosphere of the university.
Riffel retired to Mainz, where Bishop von Ketteler appointed him
in 1851 professor of Church history in his newly organized
ecclesiastical seminary. Death put a premature end to the
teaching of this Catholic educator, who contributed largely to
the restoration of a truly ecclesiastical spirit among the
German clergy. He wrote: "Geschichtliche Darstellung des
Verhaeltnisses zwischen Kirche und Staat", Mainz, 1836;
"Predigten auf alle Sonn- und Festtage des Jahres", Mainz,
1839-40, 3rd ed., 1854; "Christliche Kirchengeschichte der
neuesten Zeit", Mainz, 1841-46; "Die Aufhebung des
Jesuitenordens", 3rd ed., Mainz, 1855.
GOYAU, L'Allemagne religieuse: le Catholicisme, II (Paris,
1905), 313.
N.A. WEBER
St. John Rigby
St. John Rigby
English martyr; b. about 1570 at Harrocks Hall, Eccleston,
Lancashire; executed at St. Thomas Waterings, 21 June, 1600. He
was the fifth or sixth son of Nicholas Rigby, by Mary, daughter
of Oliver Breres of Preston. In the service of Sir Edmund
Huddleston, at a time when his daughter, Mrs. Fortescue, being
then ill, was cited to the Old Bailey for recusancy, Rigby
appeared on her behalf; compelled to confess himself a Catholic,
he was sent to Newgate. The next day, 14 February, 1599 or 1600,
he signed a confession, that, since he had been reconciled by
the martyr, John Jones the Franciscan, in the Clink some two or
three years previously, he had declined to go to church. He was
then chained and remitted to Newgate, till, on 19 February, he
was transferred to the White Lion. On the first Wednesday in
March (which was the 4th and not, as the martyr himself
supposes, the 3rd) he was brought to the bar, and in the
afternoon given a private opportunity to conform. The next day
he was sentenced for having been reconciled; but was reprieved
till the next sessions. On 19 June he was again brought to the
bar, and as he again refused to conform, he was told that his
sentence must be carried out. On his way to execution, the
hurdle was stopped by a Captain Whitlock, who wished him to
conform and asked him if he were married, to which the martyr
replied, "I am a bachelor; and more than that I am a maid", and
the captain thereupon desired his prayers. The priest, who
reconciled him, had suffered on the same spot 12 July, 1598.
[ Note: Both John Rigby and the Franciscan priest, John Jones,
were canonized by Pope Paul VI in 1970 among the Forty Martyrs
of England and Wales, whose joint feastday is kept on 25
October.]
CHALLONER, Missionary Priests, II (London, 1878), n. 117;
GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., V, 420; Chatham Society's
Publications, LXXXI (1870), 74.
JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT
Nicholas Rigby
Nicholas Rigby
Born 1800 at Walton near Preston, Lancashire; died at Ugthorpe,
7 September, 1886. At twelve years he went to Ushaw College,
where he was for a time professor of elocution. Ordained priest
in September, 1826, he was sent to St. Mary's, Wycliffe, for six
months, and was then given the united missions of Egton Bridge
and Ugthorpe. After seven years the two missions were again
separated, and he took up his residence at Ugthorpe. There he
built a church (opened in 1855), started a new cemetery, and
founded a middle-class college. About 1884 he resigned the
mission work to his curate, the Rev. E.J. Hickey. His obituary
notice, in the "Catholic Times" of 17 September, 1886, gives a
sketch of his life. He wrote: "The Real Doctrine of the Church
on Scripture", to which is added an account of the conversion of
the Duke of Brunswick (Anton Ulrich, 1710), and of "Father
Ignatius" Spencer (1830), (York, 1834), dedicated to the Rev.
Benedict Rayment. Other works, chiefly treatises on primary
truths, or sermons of a controversial character, are described
in Gillow, "Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath."
PATRICK RYAN
Right
Right
Right, as a substantive (my right, his right), designates the
object of justice. When a person declares he has a right to a
thing, he means he has a kind of dominion over such thing, which
others are obliged to recognize. Right may therefore be defined
as a moral or legal authority to possess, claim, and use a thing
as one's own. It is thus essentially distinct from obligation;
in virtue of an obligation we should, in virtue of a right, we
may do or omit something. Again, right is a moral or legal
authority, and, as such, is distinct from merely physical
superiority or pre-eminence; the thief who steals something
without being detected enjoys the physical control of the
object, but no right to it; on the contrary, his act is an
mjustice:, a violation of right, and he is bound to return the
stolen object to its owner. Right is called a moral or legal
authority, because it emanates from a law which assigns to one
the dominion over the thing and imposes on others the obligation
to respect this dominion. To the right of one person corresponds
an obligation on the part of others, so that right and
obligation condition each other. If I have the right to demand
one hundred dollars from a person, he is under the obligation to
give them to me; without this obligation, right would be
illusory. One may even say that the right of one person consists
in the fact that, on his account, others are bound to perform or
omit something.
The clause, "to possess, claim, and use, anything as one's own",
defines more closely the object of right. Justice assigns to
each person his own (suum cuique). When anyone asserts that a
thing is his own, is his private property, or belongs to him, he
means that this object stands in a special relation to him, that
it is in the first place destined for his use, and that he can
dispose of it according to his will, regardless of others. By a
thing is here meant not merely a material object, but everything
that can be useful to man, including actions, omissions, etc.
The connexion of a certain thing with a certain person, in
virtue of which the person may declare the thing his own, can
originate only on the basis of concrete facts. It is an evident
demand of human reason in general that one may give or leave
one's own to anyone; but what constitutes one's own is
determined by facts. Many things are physically connected with
the human per-son by conception or birth--his limbs, bodily and
mental qualities, health, etc. From the order imposed by the
Creator of Nature, we recognize that, from the first moment of
his being, his faculties and members are granted a person
primarily for his own use, and so that they may enable him to
support himself and develop and fulfil the tasks appointed by
the Creator for this life. These things (i.e., his qualities,
etc.) are his own from the first moment of his existence, and
whoever injures them or deprives him of them violates his right.
However, many other things are connected with the human person,
not physically, but only morally. In other words, in virtue of a
certain fact, everyone recognizes that certain things are
specially destined for thc use of one person, and must be
recognized as such by all. Persons who build a house for
themselves, make an implement, catch game in the unreserved
forest, or fish in the open sea, become the owners of these
things in virtue of occupation of their labour; they can claim
these things as their own, and no one can forcibly appropriate
or injure these things without a violation of their rights.
Whoever has lawfully purchased a thing, or been presented with
it by another, may regard such thing as his own, since by the
purchase or presentation he succeeds to the place of the other
person and possesses his rights. As a right gives rise to a
certain connection between person and person with respect to a
thing, we may distinguish in right four elements: the holder,
the object, the title, and the terminus of the right. The holder
of the right is the person who possesses the right, the terminus
is the person who has the obligation corresponding to the right,
the object is the thing to which the right refers, and the title
is the fact on the ground of which a person may regard and claim
the thing as his own. Strictly speaking, this fact alone is not
the title of thc right, which originates, indeed, in the fact,
but taken in connection with thc: principle that one must assign
to each his own property; however, since this principle may be
presupposed as self-evident, it is customary to regard the
simple fact as the title of the right.
The right of which we have hitherto been speaking is individual
right, to which the obligation of commutative justice
corresponds. Commutative justice regulates the relations of the
members of human society to one another, and aims at securing
that each member renders to his fellow-members what is equally
theirs. In addition to this commutative justice, there is also a
legal and distributive justice; these virtues regulate the
relations between the complete societies (State and Church) and
their members. From the propensities and needs of human nature
we recognize the State as resting on a Divine ordinance; only in
the State can man support himself and develop according to his
nature. But, if the Divine Creator of Nature has willed the
existence of the State, He must also will the means necessary
for its maintenance and the attainment of its objects. This will
can be found only in the right of the State to demand from its
members what is necessary for the general good. It must be
authorized to make laws, to punish violations of such, and in
general to arrange everything for the public welfare, while, on
their side, the members must be under the obligation
corresponding to this right. The virtue which makes all members
of society contribute what is necessary for its maintenance is
called legal justice, because the law has to determine in
individual cases what burdens are to be borne by the members.
According to Catholic teaching, the Church is, like the State, a
complete and independent society, wherefore it also must be
justified in demanding from its members whatever is necessary
for its welfare and the attainment of its object. But the
members of the State have not only obligations towards the
general body; they have likewise rights. The State is bound to
distribute public burdens (e.g. taxation) according to the
powers and capability of the members, and is also under the
obligation of distributing public goods (offices and honours)
according to the degree of worthiness and services. To these
duties of the general body or its leaders corresponds a right of
the members; they can demand that the leaders observe the claims
of distributive justice, and failure to do this on the part of
the authorities is a violation of the right of the members.
On the basis of the above notions of right, its object can be
more exactly determined. Three species of right and justice have
been distinguished. The object of the right, corresponding to
even-handed justice, has as its object the securing for the
members of human society in their intercourse with one another
freedom and independence in the use of their own possessions.
For the object of right can only be the good for the attainment
of which we recognize right as necessary, and which it effects
of its very nature, and this good is the freedom and
independence of every member of society in the use of his own.
If man is to fulfil freely the tasks imposed upon him by God, he
must possess the means necessary for this purpose, and be at
liberty to utilize such independently of others. He must have a
sphere of free activity, in which he is secure from the
interference of others; this object is attained by the right
which protects each in the free use of his own from the
encroachments of others. Hence the proverbs: "A willing person
suffers no injustice" and "No one is compelled to make use of
his rights". For the object of the right which corresponds to
commutative justice is the liberty of the possessor of the right
in the use of his own, and this right is not attained if each is
bound always to make use of and insist upon his rights. The
object of the right which corresponds to legal justice is the
good of the community; of this right we may not say that "no one
is bound to make use of his right", since the community---or,
more correctly, its leaders--must make use of public rights,
whenever and wherever the good of the community requires it.
Finally, the right corresponding to the object of distributive
justice is the defence of the members against the community or
its leaders; they must not be laden with public burdens beyond
their powers, and must receive as much of the public goods as
becomes the condition of their meritoriousness arid services.
Although, in accordance with the above, each of the three kinds
of rights has its own immediate object, all three tend in common
towards one remote object, which, according to St. Thomas (Cont.
Gent., III, xxxiv), is nothing else than to secure that peace be
maintained among men by procuring for each the peaceful
possession of his own.
Right (or more precisely speaking, the obligation corresponding
to right) is enforceable at least in general--that is, whoever
has a right with respect to some other person is authorized to
employ physical force to secure the fulfilment of this
obligation, if the other person will not voluntarily fulfil it.
This enforceable character of the obligation arises necessarily
from the object of right. As already said, this object is to
secure for every member of society a sphere of free activity and
for society the means necessary for its development, and the
attainment of this object is evidently indispensable for social
life; but it would not be sufficiently attained if it were left
to each one's discretion whether he should fulfil his
obligations or not. In a large community there are always many
who would allow themselves to be guided, not by right or
justice, but by their own selfish inclinations, and would
disregard the rights of their fellowmen, if they were not
forcibly confined to their proper sphere of right; consequently,
the obligation corresponding to a right must be enforceable in
favour of the possessor of the right. But in a regulated
community the power of compulsion must be vested in the public
authority, since, if each might employ force against his
fellowmen whenever his right was infringed, there would soon
arise a general conflict of all against all, and order and
safety would be entirely subverted. Only in cases of necessity,
where an unjust attack on one's life or property has to be
warded off and recourse to the authorities is impossible, has
the individual the right of meeting violence with violence.
While right or the obligation corresponding to it is
enforceable, we must beware of referring the essence of right to
this enforcibility or even to the authority to enforce it, as is
done by many jurists since the time of Kant. For enforcibility
is only a secondary characteristic of right and does not pertain
to all rights; although, for example, under a real monarchy the
subjects possess some rights with respect to the ruler, they can
usually exercise no compulsion towards him, since he is
irresponsible, and is subject to no higher authority which can
employ forcible measures against him. Rights are divided,
according to the title on which they rest, into natural and
positive rights, and the latter are subdivided into Divine and
human rights. By natural rights are meant all those which we
acquire by our very birth, e.g. the right to live, to integrity
of limbs, to freedom, to acquire property, etc.; all other
rights are called acquired rights, although many of them are
acquired, independently of any positive law, in virtue of free
acts, e.g. the right of the husband and wife in virtue of the
marriage contract, the right to ownerless goods through
occupation, the right to a house through purchase or hire, etc.
On the other hand, other rights may be given by positive law;
according as the law is Divine or human, and the latter civil or
ecclesiastical, we distinguish between Divine or human, civil or
ecclesiastical rights. To civil rights belong citizenship in a
state, active or passive franchise, etc.
V. CATHREIN
St. Rimbert
St. Rimbert
Archbishop of Bremen-Hamburg, died at Bremen 11 June, 888. It is
uncertain whether he was a Fleming or a Norman. He was educated
at the monastery of Turholt near Bruegge in Flanders. There St.
Ansgar, first Archbishop of Hamburg, became acquainted with him,
and later made him his constant companion When Ansgar died on 2
February, 865, Rimbert was chosen his successor. Pope Nicholas I
sent him the pallium in December, 865. As Ansgar's missionary
system was based on a connection with the Benedictine Order,
Rimbert became, shortly after his consecration, a monk at
Corvey, and subsequently made missionary journeys to West
Friesland, Denmark, and Sweden, but concerning these
unfortunately we have no detailed information. In 884 he
succeeded in putting to flight the Norman marauders on the coast
of Friesland; in remembrance of this incident he was later held
in special veneration in Friesland. Among his episcopal
achievements the foundation of a monastery in Buecken near
Bremen and his care for the poor and sick are especially
emphasized. Historians are indebted to him for a biography of
St. Ansgar, which is distinguished by valuable historical
information and a faithful character sketch. On the other hand,
the biography of Rimbert himself, written by a monk of Corvey,
is, while very edifying, poor in actual information; hence we
know so little of his life.
KLEMENS LOeFFLER
Council of Rimini
Council of Rimini
The second Formula of Sirmium (357) stated thc doctrine of the
Anomoeans, or extreme Arians. Against this the Semi-Arian
bishops, assembled at Ancyra, the episcopal city of their leader
Basilius, issued a counter formula, asserting that the Son is in
all things like the Father, afterwards approved by the Third
Synod of Sirmium (358). This formula, though silent on the term
"homousios", consecrated by the Council of Nicaea, was signed by
a few orthodox bishops, and probably by Pope Liberius, being, in
fact, capable of an orthodox interpretation. The Emperor
Constantius cherished at that time the hope of restoring peace
between the orthodox and the Semi-Arians by convoking a general
council. Failing to convene one either at Nicaea or at
Nicomedia, he was persuaded by Patrophilus, Bishop of
Scythopolis, and Narcissus, Bishop of Neronias, to hold two
synods, one for the East at Seleucia, in Isauria, the other for
the West at Rimini, a proceeding justified by diversity of
language and by expense. Before the convocation of the councils,
Ursacius and Valens had Marcus, Bishop of Arethusa, designated
to draft a formula (the Fourth of Sirmium) to be submitted to
the two synods. It declared that the Son was born of the Father
before all ages (agreeing so far with the Third Formula); but it
added that when God is spoken of, the word ousia, "essence ',
should be avoided, not being found in Scripture and being a
cause of scandal to the faithful; by this step they intended to
exclude the similarity of essence.
The Council of Rimini was opened early in July, 359, with over
four hundred bishops. About eighty Semi-Arians, including
Ursacius, Germinius, and Auxentius, withdrew from the orthodox
bishops, the most eminent of whom was Restitutus of Carthage;
Liberius, Eusebius, Dionysius, and others were still in exile.
The two parties sent separate deputations to the emperor, the
orthodox asserting clearly their firm attachment to the faith of
Nicaea, while the Arian minority adhered to the imperial
formula. But the inexperienced representatives of the orthodox
majority allowed themselves to be deceived, and not only entered
into communion with the heretical delegates, but even
subscribed, at, Nice in Thrace, a formula to the effect merely
that the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures (the
words "in all things" being omitted). On their return to Rimini,
they were met with the unanimous protests of their colleagues.
But the threats of the consul Taurus, the remonstrances of the
Semi-Arians against hindering peace between East and West for a
word not contained in Scripture, their privations and their
homesickness--all combined to weaken the constancy of the
orthodox bishops. And the last twenty were induced to subscribe
when Ursacius had an addition made to the formula of Nice,
declaring that the Son is not a creature like other creatures.
Pope Liberius, having regained his liberty, rejected this
formula, which was thereupon repudiated by many who had signed
it. In view of the hasty manner of its adoption and the 1ack of
approbation by the Holy See, it could have no authority. In any
case, the council was a sudden defeat of orthodoxy, and St.
Jerome could say: "The whole world groaned in astonishment to
find itself Arian".
U. BENIGNI
Rimini
Rimini
DIOCESE OF RIMINI (ARIMINUM).
Suffragan of Ravenna. Rimini is situated near the coast between
the rivers Marecchia (the ancient Ariminus) and Ausa (Aprusa).
Coast navigation and fishing are the principal industries. The
thirteenth-century cathedral (San Francesco) was originally
Gothic, but was transformed by order of Sigismondo Malatesta
(1446-55) according to the designs of Leone Baptista Alberti and
never completed; the cupola is lacking, also the upper part of
the fac,ade; in the cathedral are the tombs of Sigismondo and
his wife Isotta. The plastic decorations of the main nave and
some of the chapels, a glorification to Sigismondo and Isotta,
are by Agostino di Duccio, and breathe the pagan spirit of the
Renaissance. On the southern side are the tombs of illustrious
humanists, among them that of the philosopher Gemistus Pletho,
whose remains were brought back by Sigismondo from his wars in
the Balkans. There is a remarkable fresco of Piero della
Francesca. In San Giuliano is the great picture of Paul Veronese
representing the martyrdom of that saint, also pictures of
Bittino da Faenza (1357) dealing with some episodes of the
saint's life. Among the profane edifices are the Arch of
Augustus (27 B. C.), the remains of an amphitheatre, and the
five-arched bridge of Augustus over the Marecchia. The town hall
has a small but valuable gallery (Perin del Vaga, Ghirlandajo,
Bellini, Benedetto Coda, Tintoretto, Agostino di Duccio); the
Gambalunga Library (1677) has valuable manuscripts. There is an
archaeological museum and a bronze statue of Paul V; the castle
of Sigismondo Malatesta is now used as a prison.
Ariminum was built by the Umbri. In the sixth century B. C. it
was taken by the Gauls; after their last defeat (283) it
returned to the Umbri and became in 263 a Latin colony, very
helpful to the Romans during the late Gallic wars. Rimini was
reached by the Via Flamminia, and here began the Via AEmilia
that led to Piacenza. Augustus did much for the city and Galla
Placida built the church of San Stefano. When the Goths
conquered Rimini in 493, Odoacer, besieged in Ravenna, had to
capitulate. During the Gothic wars Rimini was taken and retaken
many times. In its vicinity Narses overthrew (553) the Alamanni.
Under Byzantine dominion it belonged to the Pentapolis. In 728
it was taken with many other cities by the Lombard King
Liutprand but returned to the Byzantines about 735. King Pepin
gave it to the Holy See, but during the wars of the popes and
the Italian cities against the emperors, Rimini sided with the
latter. In the thirteenth century it suffered from the discords
of the Gambacari and Ansidei families. In 1295 Malatesta I da
Verucchio was named "Signore" of the city, and, despite
interruptions, his family held authority until 1528. Among his
successors were: Malatesta II (1312-17); Pandolfo I, his brother
(d. 1326), named by Louis the Bavarian imperial vicar in
Romagna; Ferrantino, son of Malatesta II (1335), opposed by his
cousin Ramberto and by Cardinal Bertando del Poggetto (1331),
legate of John XXII; Malatesta III, Guastafamiglia (1363), lord
also of Pesaro; Malatesta IV l'Ungaro (1373); Galeotto, uncle of
the former (1385), lord also of Fano (from 1340), Pesaro, and
Cesena (1378); his son Carlo (1429), the noblest scion of the
family, laboured for the cessation of the Western Schism, and
was the counsellor, protector, and ambassador of Gregory XII,
and patron of scholars; Galeotto Roberto (1432); his brother
Sigismondo Pandolf (1468) had the military and intellectual
qualities of Carlo Malatesta but not his character. He was
tyrannous and perfidious, in constant rebellion against the
popes, a good soldier, poet, philosopher, and lover of the fine
arts, but a monster of domestic and public vices; in 1463 he
submitted to Pius II, who left him Rimini; Robert, his son
(1482), under Paul II nearly lost his state and under Sixtus IV
became the commanding officer of the pontifical army against
Alfonso of Naples, by whom he was defeated in the battle of
Campo Morto (1482); Pandolfo V, his son (1500), lost Rimini to
Cesare Borgia (1500-3), after whose overthrow it fell to Venice
(1503-9), but was retaken by Julius II and incorporated with the
territory of the Holy See. After the death of Leo X Pandolfo
returned for several months, and with his son Sigismondo held
tyrannous rule. Adrian VI gave Rimini to the Duke of Urbino, the
pope's vicar. In 1527 Sigismondo managed to regain the city, but
the following year the Malatesta dominion passed away forever.
Rimini was thenceforth a papal city, subject to the legate at
Forl`i. In 1845 a band of adventurers commanded by Ribbotti
entered the city and proclaimed a constitution which was soon
abolished. In 1860 Rimini and the Romagna were incorporated with
the Kingdom of Italy.
Rimini was probably evangelized from Ravenna. Among its
traditional martyrs are: St. Innocentia and companions; Sts.
Juventinus, Facundinus, and companions; Sts. Theodorus and
Marinus. The see was probably established before the peace of
Constantine. Among the bishops were: Stennius, at Rome in 313;
Cyriacus, one of his successors, sided with the Arians; under
St. Gaudentius the famous Council of Rimini was held (359); he
was later put to death by the Arians for having excommunicated
the priest Marcianus; Stephanus attended at Constantinople
(551); the election of Castor (591) caused much trouble to St.
Gregory I, who had to send to Rimini a "visitor"; Agnellus (743)
was governor of the city subject to the Archbishop of Ravenna;
Delto acted frequently as legate for John VIII; Blessed Arduino
(d. in 1009); Uberto II is mentioned with praise by St. Peter
Damian; Opizo was one of the consecrators of the Antipope
Clement III (Guiberto, 1075); Ranieri II degli Uberti (1143)
consecrated the ancient cathedral of St. Colomba; Alberigo
(1153) made peace between Rimini and Cesena; Bonaventura
Trissino founded the hospital of Santo Spirito; under Benno
(1230) some pious ladies founded a hospital for the lepers, and
themselves cared for the afflicted. At the end of the thirteenth
century the Armenians received at Rimini a church and a
hospital. From 1407 Gregory XII resided at Rimini. Giovanni Rosa
united the eleven hospitals of Rimini into one. Under Giulio
Parisani (1549) the seminary was opened (1568). Giambattista
Castelli (1569) promoted the Tridentine reforms and was nuncio
at Paris. Andrea Minucci was severely tried during the French
Revolution; under him the Malatesta church (San Francesco)
became the cathedral. The diocese has 124 parishes, 125,400
inhabitants, 336 priests, 10 houses of religious with 56
priests, 24 houses of religious women, who care for the
hospitals, orphanages, and other charitable institutions, or
communal and private schools. There are also 1 school for boys
and 3 for girls.
CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, II; NARDI, Cronotassi dei
pastori della Chiesa di Rimini (Rimini, 1813); TONINI, Storia
civile e sacra di Rimini (6 vols., Rimini, 1848-88); IDEM,
Compendio della storia di Rimini (1896); YRIARTE, Rimini: Etudes
sur les lettres et les arts `a la cour des Malatesta (Paris,
1882).
U. BENIGNI
Rimouski
Rimouski
DIOCESE OF RIMOUSKI (SANCTI GERMANI DE RIMOUSKI)
Suffragan of Quebec, comprises the counties of Bonaventure,
Gaspe (except Magdalen Islands), Rimouski and the greater part
of Temiscouata, and forms the eastern extremity of the province
of Quebec. At the extreme point of the Gaspe peninsula (formerly
called Honguedo), Jacques Cartier landed on his first voyage of
discovery (1534) and planted a cross with the royal arms of
France. The Souriquois or Micmacs occupied the shores of Baie
des Chaleurs, and their successive missionaries, Recollets,
Capuchins, Jesuits, amongst them Father Labrosse, and Spiritians
(or priests of the seminary of the Holy Ghost), including the
celebrated Pierre Maillard, ministered to that region of the
Rimouski diocese. The first Mass was celebrated near the city of
Rimouski, at a place since called Pointe-au-Pere, by the Jesuit
Henri Nouvel, in 1663, on his way to the Papinachois and
Montagnais of Tadoussac, on the north shore. The first settler
at Rimouski was Germain Lepage (1696), whose patronymic was
chosen as titular of the future parish and diocese. The
seigniory had been conceded to his son Rene in 1688. The latest
statistics give 120 churches and chapels, with 148 priests. Two
wooden churches were built at Rimouski, in 1712 and 1787
respectively; the first stone church, 1824, was replaced by the
present cathedral in 1854. Before the creation of the see,
Rimouski was successively visited by Bishops Hubert (1791),
Denaut (1798), Plessis (1806-14-22), Panet (1810-26), Signay
(1833-38-43), Turgeon (1849), and Baillargeon (1855-60-65). The
see was created and its first titular nominated on 15 January,
1867, and acquired civil incorporation ipso facto the same day,
according to the law of the country.
The first bishop, Jean-Pierre-Franc,ois Laforce-Langevin, was b.
at Quebec, 22 Sept., 1821, and ordained on 12 Sept., 1844. as
director of the Quebec seminary he was one of the joint founders
of Laval University (1852). He successively filled the offices
of pastor to the parishes of Ste Claire and Beauport, and of
principal of Laval Normal School. He was consecrated 1 may,
1867, resigned 1891, and died 1892. He completed the
organization of a classical college previously founded by the
Abbes C. Tanguay and G. Potvin and adopted it as the seminary of
the diocese. He introduced the Sisters of the Congregation of
Notre-Dame (Montreal) and sanctioned the foundation (1879) of
the Sisters of the Most Holy Rosary, a flourishing institute
largely due to the zeal of Vicar-General Langevin, his brother.
Bishop Langevin established the cathedral chapter in 1878.
The second bishop, still in office, Andre-Albert Blais, b. at
St-Vallier, P.Q., 1842, studied at the college of Ste Anna de la
Pocatiere, graduated in Rome Doctor of Canon Law, and taught the
same branch at Laval University. He was consecrated bishop 18
May, 1890, and took possession of the see in 1891. Bishop Blais
created many new parishes in the diocese, and founded a normal
school under the management of the Ursulines. The clergy,
exclusively French-Canadian, study classics and philosophy at
the diocesan seminary, and theology principally at Laval
University, in some cases at the Propaganda, Rome. (For
parochial system, incorporation of religious institutions, etc.
see CANADA, and QUEBEC, PROVINCE OF.) There are no cities
besides Rimouski, but all the larger rural parishes have fine
churches and convent-schools; the only domestic mission is that
of the Micmacs at Ristigouche, under the care of the Capuchins.
Besides a Priests' Aid Society, there are several benevolent and
mutual aid societies for the laity. The religious orders of men
are the Capuchins, Eudists, and Brothers of the Cross of Jesus;
those of women are the Ursulines, Sisters of Charity, of the
Good Shepherd (teaching), of the Holy Rosary, of the Holy
Family, and the Daughters of Jesus. Retreats for the clergy are
given each year; conferences to discuss theological cases take
place every three months. Nearly all the secular clergy (110 our
of 137) belong to the Eucharistic league. Out of a total
Catholic population of 118,740, only 3695 are not French
Canadians. The Indians number 610. The Protestant element
amounts to 8798. There is no friction between these different
elements and no difficult racial problem to solve, the parishes
containing an English-speaking element as well as the Micmacs
being instructed in their native tongues.
GUAY, Chroniques de Rimouski (Quebec, 1873); Le Canada
ecclesiastique (Montreal, 1911).
LIONEL LINDSAY
Rings
Rings
In General
Although the surviving ancient rings, proved by their devices,
provenance, etc., to be of Christian origin, are fairly numerous
(See Fortnum in "Arch. Journ.", XXVI, 141, and XXVIII, 275), we
cannot in most cases identify them with any liturgical use.
Christians no doubt, just like other people, wore rings in
accordance with their station in life, for rings are mentioned
without reprobation in the New Testament (Luke, xv, 22, and
James, ii, 2). Moreover, St. Clement of Alexandria (Paed., III,
c. xi) says that a man might lawfully wear a ring on his little
finger, and that it should bear some religious emblem--a dove,
or a fish, or an anchor - though, on the other hand, Tertullian,
St. Cyprian, and the Apostolic Constitutions (I, iii) protest
against the ostentation of Christians in decking themselves with
rings and gems. In any case the Acts of Sts. Perpetua and
Felicitas (c. xxi), about the beginning of the third century,
inform us of how the martyr Saturus took a ring from the finger
of Pudens, a soldier who was looking on, and gave it back to him
as a keepsake, covered with his own blood.
Knowing, as we do, that in the pagan days of Rome every flamen
Dialis (i.e., a priest specially consecrated to the worship of
Jupiter) had, like the senators, the privilege of wearing a gold
ring, it would not be surprising to find evidence in the fourth
century that rings were worn by Christian bishops. But the
various passages that have been appealed to, to prove this, are
either not authentic or else are inconclusive. St. Augustine
indeed speaks of his sealing a letter with a ring (Ep. ccxvii,
in P.L., XXXIII, 227), but on the other hand his contemporary
Possidius expressly states that Augustine himself wore no ring
(P.L., XXXII, 53), whence we are led to conclude that the
possession of a signet does not prove the use of a ring as part
of the episcopal insignia. However, in a Decree of Pope Boniface
IV (A.D. 610) we hear of monks raised to the episcopal dignity
as anulo pontificali subarrhatis, while at the Fourth Council of
Toledo, in 633, we are told that if a bishop has been deposed
from his office, and is afterwards reinstated, he is to receive
back stole, ring, and crosier (orarium, anulum et baculum). St.
Isidore of Seville at about the same period couples the ring
with the crosier and declares that the former is conferred as
"an emblem of the pontifical dignity or of the sealing of
secrets" (P.L., LXXXIII, 783). From this time forth it may be
assumed that the ring was strictly speaking an episcopal
ornament conferred in the rite of consecration, and that it was
commonly regarded as emblematic of the betrothal of the bishop
to his Church. In the eighth and ninth centuries in MSS. of the
Gregorian Sacramentary and in a few early Pontificals (e.g.,
that attributed to Archbishop Egbert of York) we meet with
various formulae for the delivery of the ring. The Gregorian
form, which survives in substance to the present day, runs in
these terms: "Receive the ring, that is to say the seal of
faith, whereby thou, being thyself adorned with spotless faith,
mayst keep unsullied the troth which thou hast pledged to the
spouse of God, His holy Church."
These two ideas--namely of the seal, indicative of discretion,
and of conjugal fidelity--dominate the symbolism attaching to
the ring in nearly all its liturgical uses. The latter idea was
pressed so far in the case of bishops that we find
ecclesiastical decrees enacting that "a bishop deserting the
Church to which he was consecrated and transferring himself to
another is to be held guilty of adultery and is to be visited
with the same penalties as a man who, forsaking his own wife,
goes to live with another woman" (Du Saussay, "Panoplia
episcopalis", 250). It was perhaps this idea of espousals which
helped to establish the rule, of which we hear already in the
ninth century, that the episcopal ring was to be placed on the
fourth finger (i.e., that next the little finger) of the right
hand. As the pontifical ring had to be worn on occasion over the
glove, it is a common thing to find medieval specimens large in
size and proportionately heavy m execution. The inconvenience of
the looseness thus resulting was often met by placing another
smaller ring just above it as a keeper (see Lacy, "Exeter
Pontifical", 3). As the pictures of the medieval and Renaissance
periods show, it was formerly quite usual for bishops to wear
other rings along with the episcopal ring; indeed the existing
"Caeremoniale episcoporum" (Bk. II, viii, nn. 10-11) assumes
that this is still likely to be the case. Custom prescribes that
a layman or a cleric of inferior grade on being presented to a
bishop should kiss his hand, that is to say his episcopal ring,
but it is a popular misapprehension to suppose that any
indulgence is attached to the act. Episcopal rings, both at an
earlier and later period, were sometimes used as receptacles for
relics. St. Hugh of Lincoln had such a ring which must have been
of considerable capacity. (On investiture by ring and staff see
Investitures, Conflict of.)
Besides bishops, many other ecclesiastics are privileged to wear
rings. The pope of course is the first of bishops, but he does
not habitually wear the signet ring distinctive of the papacy
and known as "the Ring of the Fisherman" (see below in this
article), but usually a simple cameo, while his more magnificent
pontifical rings are reserved for solemn ecclesiastical
functions. Cardinals also wear rings independently of their
grade in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The ring belonging to the
cardinalitial dignity is conferred by the pope himself in the
consistory in which the new cardinal is named to a particular
"title". It is of small value and is set with a sapphire, while
it bears on the inner side of the bezel the arms of the pope
conferring it. In practice the cardinal is not required to wear
habitually the ring thus presented, and he commonly prefers to
use one of his own. The privilege of wearing a ring has belonged
to cardinal-priests since the time of Innocent III or earlier
(see Saegmueller, "Thatigkeit und Stellung der Cardinale", 163).
Abbots in the earlier Middle Ages were permitted to wear rings
only by special privilege. A letter of Peter of Blois in the
twelfth century (P.L., CCVII, 283) shows that at that date the
wearing of a ring by an abbot was apt to be looked upon as a
piece of ostentation, out in the later Pontificals the blessing
and delivery of a ring formed part of the ordinary ritual for
the consecration of an abbot, and this is still the case at the
present day. On the other hand: there is no such ceremony
indicated in the blessing of an abbess, though certain abbesses
have received, or assumed, the privilege of wearing a ring of
office. The ring is also regularly worn by certain other minor
prelates, for example prothonotaries, but the privilege cannot
be said to belong to canons as such (B. de Montault, "Le
costume, etc.", I, 170) without special indult. In any case such
rings cannot ordinarily be worn by these minor prelates during
the celebration of Mass. The same restriction, it need hardly be
said, applies to the ring which is conferred as part of the
insignia of the doctorate either of theology or of canon law.
The plain rings worn by certain orders of nuns and conferred
upon them in the course of their solemn profession, according to
the ritual provided in the Roman Pontifical appear to find some
justification in ancient tradition. St. Ambrose (P.L., XVII,
701, 735) speaks as though it were a received custom for virgins
consecrated to God to wear a ring in memory of their betrothal
to their heavenly Spouse. This delivery of a ring to professed
nuns is also mentioned by several medieval Pontificals, from the
twelfth century onwards. Wedding rings, or more strictly, rings
given in the betrothal ceremony, seem to have been tolerated
among Christians under the Roman Empire from a quite early
period. The use of such rings was of course of older date than
Christianity, and there is not much to suggest that the giving
of the ring was at first incorporated in any ritual or invested
with any precise religious significance. But it is highly
probable that, if the acceptance and the wearing of a betrothal
ring was tolerated among Christians, such rings would have been
adorned with Christian emblems. Certain extant specimens, more
particularly a gold ring found near Arles, belonging apparently
to the fourth or fifth century, and bearing the inscription,
Tecla vivat Deo cum marito seo [suo], may almost certainly be
assumed to be Christian espousal rings. In the coronation
ceremony, also, it has long been the custom to deliver both to
the sovereign and to the queen consort a ring previously
blessed. Perhaps the earliest example of the use of such a ring
is in the case of Judith, the step-mother of Alfred the Great.
It is however in this instance a little difficult to determine
whether the ring was bestowed upon the queen in virtue of her
dignity as queen consort or of her nuptials to Ethelwulf.
Rings have also occasionally been used for other religious
purposes. At an early date the small keys which contained
filings from the chains of St. Peter seem to have been welded to
a band of metal and worn upon the finger as reliquaries. In more
modern times rings have been constructed with ten small knobs or
protuberances, and used for saying the rosary.
Babington in Dict. Christ. Antiq.; Leclercq in Dict. daearch.
chret., I (Paris, 1907), s. v. Anneaux; Deloche, Etude
historique et archeologique sur les anneaux (Paris, 1900); Du
Saussay, Panoplia episcopalis (Paris, 1646), 175-294; Dalton,
Catalogue of early Christian Antiquities in the British Museum
(London, 1901); Barbier de Montault, Le costume et les usages
ecclesiastiques selon la tradition romaine (Paris, 1897-1901).
HERBERT THURSTON
The Ring of Fisherman
The Ring of the Fisherman
The earliest mention of the Fisherman's ring worn by the popes
is in a letter of Clement IV written in 1265 to his nephew,
Peter Grossi. The writer states that popes were then accustomed
to seal their private letters with "the seal of the Fisherman",
whereas public documents, he adds, were distinguished by the
leaden "bulls" attached (see BULLS AND BRIEFS). From the
fifteenth century, however, the Fisherman's ring has been used
to seal the class of papal official documents known as Briefs.
The Fisherman's ring is placed, by the cardinal camerlengo on
the finger of a newly elected pope. It is made of gold, with a
representation of St. Peter in a boat, fishing, and the name of
the reigning pope around it.
BABINGTON in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. v., 3.
MAURICE M. HASSETT
Giovanni Battista Rinuccini
Giovanni Battista Rinuccini
Born at Rome, 1592; d. at Fermo, 1653, was the son of a
Florentine patrician, his mother being a sister of Cardinal
Ottavo. Educated at Rome and at the Universities of Bologna,
Perugia and Pisa, in due course he was ordained priest, having
at the age of twenty-two obtained his doctor's degree from the
University of Pisa. Returning to Rome he won distinction as an
advocate in the ecclesiastical courts, and in 1625 became
Archbishop of Fermo. For the twenty years following, his life
was the uneventful one of a hard-working chief pastor, and then,
in 1645, he was sent as papal nuncio to Ireland. Maddened by
oppression, the Irish Catholics had taken up arms, had set up a
legislative assembly with an executive government, and had bound
themselves by oath not to cease fighting until they had secured
undisturbed possession of their lands and religious liberty. But
the difficulties were great. The Anglo-Irish and old Irish
disagreed, their generals were incompetent or quarrelled with
each other, supplies were hard to get, and the Marquis of Ormond
managed to sow dissension among the members of the Supreme
Council at Kilkenny. In these circumstances the Catholics sought
for foreign aid from Spain and the pope; and the latter sent
them Rinuccini with a good supply of arms, ammunition, and
money. He arrived in Ireland, in the end of 1645, after having
narrowly escaped capture at sea by an English vessel. Acting on
his instructions from the pope, he encouraged the Irish
Catholics not to strive for national independence, but rather to
aid the king against the revolted Puritans, provided there was a
repeal of the penal laws in existence. Finding, however, that
Ormond, acting for the king, would grant no toleration to the
Catholics, Rinuccini wished to fight both the Royalists and the
Puritans. The Anglo-Irish, satisfied with even the barest
toleration, desired negotiations with Ormond and peace at any
price, while the Old Irish were for continuing the war until the
Plantation of Ulster was undone, and complete toleration
secured. Failing to effect a union between such discordant
elements, Rinuccini lost courage; and when Ormond surrendered
Dublin to the Puritans, and the Catholics became utterly
helpless from dissension, he left Ireland, in 1649, and retired
to his diocese, where he died.
Rinuccini, The Embassy to Ireland (tr. Hutton, Dublin, 1873);
Gilbert, History of Irish Affairs (1641-52, 1880); Meehan,
Confederation of Kilkenny (Dublin, 1846); D'Alton, History of
Ireland (London, 1910).
E.A. D'ALTON
Alexis-Francois Rio
Alexis-Franc,ois Rio
French writer on art, b. on the Island of Arz, Department of
Morbihan, 20 May, 1797; d. 17 June, 1874. He was educated at the
college of Vannes, where he received his first appointment as
instructor, which occupation however proved to be distasteful.
He proceeded to Paris, but was temporarily disappointed in his
hope of obtaining there a chair of history. His enthusiastic
championship of the liberty of the Greeks attracted the
attention of the Government, which appointed him censor of the
public press. His refusal of this appointment won him great
popularity and the lifelong friendship of Montalembert. In 1828
he published his first work, "Essai sur l'histoire de l'esprit
humain dans l'antiquite", which brought him the favour of the
minister de La Ferronays and a secretariate in the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. This position allowed him (as Montalembert
later wrote to him) to become for Christian, what Winckelmann
had been for ancient, art. He spent the greater portion of the
period 1830-60 in travels through Italy, Germany, and England.
In Munich he became acquainted with the spokesmen of
contemporary Catholicism -- Boisseree, Baader, Doellinger,
Goerres, and Rumohr -- and also with Schelling. Schelling gave
him an insight into the aesthetic ideal; Rumohr directed him to
Italy, where the realization of this ideal in art could be seen.
In 1835 the first volume of his "Art chretien" appeared under
the misleading title, "De la poesie chretienne--Forme de l'art".
This work, which was received with enthusiasm in Germany and
Italy, was a complete failure in France. Discouraged, he
renounced art study and wrote a history of the persecutions of
the English Catholics, a work which was never printed. As the
result of his intercourse with the Pre-Raphaelites of England,
where he lived for three years and married, and especially of
Montalembert's encouragement, he visited again, in company with
his wife, all the important galleries of Europe, although he had
meanwhile become lame and had to drag himself through the
museums on crutches. Prominent men like Gladstone, Manzoni, and
Thiers became interested in his studies, which he published in
four volumes under the title "L'art chretien" (1861-7). This
work is not a history of all Christian art, but of Italian
painting from Cimabue to the death of Raphael. Without any
strict method or criticism, he expresses preference for the art
of the fifteenth century, not without many an inexact and even
unjust judgment on the art of later ages; but, in spite, or
rather on account of this partiality, he has contributed greatly
towards restoring to honour the forgotten and despised art of
the Middle Ages. Rio describes the more notable incidents of his
life in the two works, "Histoire d'un college breton sous
l'Empire, la petite chouannerie" (1842) and "Epilogue `a l'art
chretien" (2 vols., Paris, 1872). He also published the
following works: "Shakespeare" (1864), in which he claims the
great dramatist as a Catholic; "Michel-Ange et Raphael" (1867);
"L'ideal antique et l'ideal chretien" (1873).
Lefebure, Portraits de croyants (2nd ed., Paris, 1905), 157-284.
B. KLEINSCHMIDT
Riobamba
Riobamba
Diocese of (Bolivarensis), suffragan of Quito, Ecuador, erected
by Pius IX, 5 January, 1863. The city, which has a population of
18,000, is situated 9039 feet above sea-level, 85 miles E.N.E.
of Guayaquil. Its streets are wide and its adobe houses
generally but one story high on account of the frequent
earthquakes. Formerly the city was situated about 18 miles
further west near the village of Cajabamba and contained 40,000
inhabitants. but it was completely destroyed on 4 February,
1797, by an earthquake. Old Riobamba was the capital of the
Kingdom of Puruha before the conquest of the Incas; it was
destroyed by Ruminiahui during his retreat in 1533 after his
defeat by Benalcazar. The cathedral and the Redemptorist church
in the new city are very beautiful. Velasco the historian and
the poets Larrea and Orozco were natives of Riobamba. It was
here too that the first national Ecuadorian convention was held
in 1830. The diocese, comprising the civil Provinces of
Chimborazo and Bolivar (having an area of 4250 square miles),
has 63 priests, 48 churches and chapels, and about 200,000
inhabitants. The present bishop, Mgr Andres Machado, S.J., was
born at Cuenca, Ecuador, 16 October, 1850, and appointed, 12
November, 1907, in succession to Mgr Arsenio Andrade (b. at
Uyumbicho, in the Archdiocese of Quito, 8 September, 1825,
appointed on 13 November, 1884, d. 1907).
Mera, Geog. de la republica del Ecuador.
A.A. MacERLEAN
Rio Negro
Rio Negro
Prefecture Apostolic in Brazil, bounded on the south by a line
running westwards from the confluence of the Rio Negro and Rio
Branco along the watershed of the Rio Negro to Colombia,
separating the new prefecture from those of Teffe and Upper
Solimoes, and the See of Amazones (from which it was separated
by a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Consistory, 19
Oct., 1910), on the west by Colombia, on the north by Colombia
and Venezuela, on the east by the territory of Rio Branco. The
white population is small, and confined to the few villages
along the banks of the Rio Negro. As early as 1658 a Jesuit
Father, Francisco Gonsales, established a mission among the
natives of the Upper Rio Negro, and traces of the work of the
Jesuit missionaries still exist in the scattered villages. Two
years later a Carmelite, Father Theodosius, evangelized the
Tucumaos. The Franciscans labored among the Indians from 1870
and had seven stations on the Rio Uaupes (Tariana Indians), four
on the Rio Tikie (Toccana Indians), and one on the Rio Papuri
(Macu Indians), but on the fall of the empire most of the
missions were abandoned, though some of them were re-established
later.
A.A. MACERLEAN
Juan Martinez de Ripalda
Juan Martinez de Ripalda
Theologian, b. at Pamplona, Navarre, 1594; d. at Madrid, 26
April, 1648. He entered the Society of Jesus at Pamplona in
1609. In the triennial reports of 1642 he says of himself that
he was not physically strong, that he had studied religion,
arts, and theology, that he had taught grammar one year, arts
four, theology nineteen, and had been professed. According to
Southwell, he taught philosophy at Monforte, theology at
Salamanca, and was called from there to the Imperial College of
Madrid, where, by royal decree, he taught moral theology. Later
he was named censor to the Inquisition and confessor of de
Olivares, the favorite of Philip IV, whom he followed when he
was exiled from Madrid. Southwell describes his character by
saying that he was a good religious, noted for his innocence.
Mentally he qualifies him as subtle in argument, sound in
opinion, keen-edged and clear in expression, and well-versed in
St. Augustine and St. Thomas. According to Drews, no Jesuit ever
occupied this chair in the University of Salamanca with more
honor than he, and Hurter places him, with Lugo, first among the
contemporary theologians of Spain, and perhaps of all Europe.
Among the numerous theological opinions which characterize him
the following are worth citing: (1) He thinks that the creation
of an intrinsically supernatural substance is possible, in other
words, that a creature is possible to which supernatural grace,
with the accompanying gifts and intuitive vision, is due. (2) He
holds that, by a positive decree of God, supernatural grace is
conferred, in the existing providence for every good act
whatsoever; so that every good act is supernatural, or at least
that every natural good act is accompanied by another which is
supernatural. (3) He maintains that, prescinding from the
extrinsic Divine law, and taking into account only the nature of
things, the supernatural faith which is called lata would be
sufficient for justification, that faith, namely, which comes by
the contemplation of created things, though assent is not
produced with- out grace. (4) He affirms that in the promissory
revelations the formal object of faith is God's faithfulness to
His promises, the constancy of His will, and the efficacy of
omnipotence. (5) He asserts that all the propositions of Baius
were condemned for doctrine according to the sense in which he
(Baius) held them. (6) He maintains that the Divine maternity of
the Blessed Virgin Mary is of itself a sanctifying form. The
following are his works: "De ente supernaturali disputationes in
universam theologiam", .three vols., I (Bordeaux, 1634), II
(Lyons, 1645), III, written "Adversus Bajanos" (Cologne, 1648);
rare editions like that of Lyons, 1663, have been published of
the two first volumes. It is a classic work in which he included
questions which are not included in ordinary theological
treatises. His third volume was attacked in an anonymous work,
"P. Joannis Martinez . . . Vulpes capta per theologos . . .
Academiae Lovaniensis", which Reusch says was the work of
Sinnich. "Expositio brevis litterae Magistri Sententiarum"
(Salamanca, 1635), praised by the Calvinist Voet. "Tractatus
theologici et scholastici de virtutibus, fide, spe et charitate"
(Lyons, 1652), a posthumous work and very rare. Two new editions
of all his works have been issued: Vives (8 vols., Paris,
1871-3), Palme (4 vols., Paris, Rome, Propaganda Fide, 1870-1).
"Discurso sobre la eleccion de sucessor del pontificado en vida
del pontifice" (Seville). Uriarte says this work was published
in Aragon, perhaps in Huesca, with the anagram of Martin Jiron
de Palazeda, written by order of the Count de Olivares. The
following are in manuscript: "De visione Dei" (2 vols.); "De
praedestinatione"; "De angelis et auxiliis"; "De voluntate Dei"
preserved in the University of Salamanca; "Discurso acerca de la
ley de desafio y parecer sobre el desafio de Medina Sidonia a
Juan de Braganza", preserved in the Biblioteca Nacional.
SOUTHWELL, Biblioteca scriptorum S. J. (Rome, 1670), 478;
ANTONIO, Bibliotheca hispana nova, I (Madrid, 1783), 736;
HURTER, Nomenclator, I (Innsbruck, 1892), 381; SOMMERVOGEL,
Bibliotheque, V., col. 640, Biografia eclesiastica completa,
XXII (Madrid, 1864), 179.
ANTONIO PEREZ GOYENA
Ripatransone
Ripatransone
(RIPANENSIS).
Diocese in Ascoli Piceno, Central Italy. The city is situated on
five hills, not far from the site of ancient Cupra Marittima.
The modern name comes from Ripa trans Asonem, "the other bank of
the Asone". A castle was erected there in the early Middle Ages,
and enlarged later by the bishops of Fermo, who had several
conflicts with the people. In 1571 St. Pius V made it an
episcopal see, naming as its first bishop Cardinal Lucio Sasso
and including in its jurisdiction small portions of the
surrounding Dioceses of Fermo, Ascoli, and Teramo. Noteworthy
bishops were: Cardinal Filippo Sega (1575); Gaspare Sillingardi
(1582), afterwards Bishop of Modena, employed by Alfonso II of
Ferrara on various missions to Rome and to Spain, effected a
revival of religious life in Ripatransone; Gian Carlo Gentili
(1845), historian of Sanseverino and Ripatransone; Alessandro
Spoglia (1860-67) not recognized by the Government. The
cathedral is the work of Gaspare Guerra and has a beautiful
marble altar with a triptych by Crivelli; the church of the
Madonna del Carmine possesses pictures of the Raphael School.
The diocese, at first directly subject to the Holy See, has been
suffragan of Fermo since 1680.
CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia, III (Venice, 1857); Annuaire
pontifical catholique (Paris, 1911), s.v. U. BENIGNI
Marquess of Ripon
Marquess of Ripon
George Frederick Samuel Robinson, K.G., P.C., G.C.S.I., F.R.S.,
Earl de Grey, Earl of Ripon, Viscount Goderich, Baron Grantham,
and baronet
Born at the prime minister's residence, 10 Downing Street,
London, 24 Oct., 1827; died 9 July, 1909. He was the second son
of Frederick John Robinson, Viscount Goderich, afterwards first
Earl of Ripon, and Lady Sarah Albinia Louisa, daughter of
Robert, fourth Earl of Buckinghamshire; and he was born during
his father's brief tenure of the office of prime minister.
Before entering public life he married (8 April, 1851) his
cousin Henrietta Ann Theodosia, elder daughter of Captain Henry
Vyner, and by her had two children, Frederick Oliver, who
succeeded to his honours, and Mary Sarah, who died in infancy.
Inheriting the principles which were common to the great Whig
families, Lord Ripon remained through his long public life one
of the most generally respected supporters of Liberalism, and
even those who most severely criticised his administrative
ability -- and in his time he held very many of the great
offices of state -- recognized the integrity and
disinterestedness of his aims. He entered the House of Commons
as member for Hull in 1852, and after representing Huddersfield
(1853-57), and the West Riding of Yorkshire (1857-59), he
succeeded his father as Earl of Ripon and Viscount Goderich on
28 Jan., 1859, taking his seat in the House of Lords. In the
following November he succeeded his uncle as Earl de Grey and
Baron Grantham. In the same year he first took office, and was a
member of every Liberal administration for the next
half-century. The offices he held were: under secretary of State
for war (1859-61); under secretary of State for India
(1861-1863); secretary of State for war; (1863-66), all under
Lord Palmerston; secretary of State for India (1866) under Earl
Russell. In Mr. Gladstone's first administration he was lord
president of the council (1868-73) and during this period acted
as chairman of the joint commission for drawing up the Treaty of
Washington which settled the Alabama claims (1876). For this
great public service he was created Marquess of Ripon. He also
was grand master of the freemasons from 1871 to 1874, when he
resigned this office to enter the Catholic Church. He was
received at the London Oratory, 4 Sept., 1874. When Gladstone
returned to power in 1880 he appointed Lord Ripon
Governor-General and Viceroy of India, the office with which his
name will ever be connected, he having made himself beloved by
the Indian subjects of the Crown as no one of his predecessors
had been. He held this office until 1884. In the short
administration of 1886 he was first lord of the admiralty, and
in that of 1892-1895 he was secretary of State for the Colonies.
When the Liberals again returned to power he took office as lord
privy seal. This office he resigned in 1908. Ever a fervent
Catholic, Lord Ripon took a great share in educational and
charitable works. He was president of the Society of St. Vincent
de Paul from 1899 until his death; vice-president of the
Catholic Union, and a great supporter of St. Joseph's Catholic
Missionary Society.
The Tablet (17 July, 1909); Annual Register (London, 1909).
EDWIN BURTON
Richard Risby
Richard Risby
Born in the parish of St. Lawrence, Reading, 1489; executed at
Tyburn, London, 20 April, 1534. He entered Winchester College in
1500, and was subsequently a fellow of New College, Oxford,
taking his degree in 1510. He resigned in 1513 to enter the
Franciscan Order, and eventually became warden of the Observant
friary at Canterbury. He was condemned to death by the Act of
Attainder, 25 Henry VIII, c. 12, together with Elizabeth Barton,
Edward Bocking, Hugh Rich, warden of the Observant friary at
Richmond, John Dering, B.D. (Oxon.), Benedictine of Christ
Church, Canterbury, Henry Gold, M.A. (Oxon.), parson of St.
Mary; Aldermanbury, London, and vicar of Hayes, Middlesex and
Richard Master, rector of Aldington, Kent, who was pardoned; but
by some strange oversight Master's name is included and Risby's
omitted in the catalogue of praetermissi. Father Thomas
Bourchier, who took the Franciscan habit at Greenwich about
1557, says that Fathers Risby and Rich were twice offered their
lives, if they would accept the king's supremacy.
GAIRDNER, Letters and Papers of the reign of Henry VIII, VI, Vll
(London, Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, and Dublin, 1882-3),
passim; GASQUET, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (London,
1906), 44; KIRBY, Winchester Scholars (London and Winchester,
1888), 98; BOASE, Register of the University of Oxford (Oxford,
1885), 71.
J.B. WAINEWRIGHT
William Rishanger
William Rishanger
Chronicler, b. at Rishangles, Suffolk, about 1250; d. after
1312. He became a Benedictine at St. Alban's Abbey,
Hertfordshire in 1271, and there revived the custom of composing
chronicles which had languished since the time of Matthew Paris.
His chief work is the history of the Barons' Wars, "Narratio de
bellis apud Lewes et Evesham", covering the period from 1258 to
1267 and including a reference which shows that he was still
engaged on it on 3 May, 1312. Apart from its historical matter
which is derived from Matthew Paris and his continuators, it is
interesting for the evidence it affords of the extreme
veneration in which Simon de Montfort was held at that time. He
also wrote a short chronicle about Edward I, "Quaedam
recapitulatio brevis de gestis domini Edwardi". It is possible,
though not very probable, that he wrote the earlier part of a
chronicle, "Willelmi Rishanger, monachi S. Albani, Chronica".
Four other works attributed to him by Bale are not authentic.
RILEY, Willelmi Rishanger chronica et annales in R. S. (London
1863-76); RILEY in Mon. Germ. Hist., XXVIII (Berlin, 1865);
HALLIWELL, Chronicle of William de Rishanger of the Barons' Wars
in Camden Society Publications, XV (London, 1840); BEMONT, Simon
de Montfort (Paris, 1884); HARDY, Descriptive Catalogue (London,
1862-71), I, 871; III, 171-2, 191-3; TOUT in Dict. Nat. Bioq.,
s.v.
EDWIN BURTON
Edward Rishton
Edward Rishton
Born in Lancashire, 1550; died at Sainte-Menehould, Lorraine, 29
June, 1585. He was probably a younger son of John Rishton of
Dunkenhalgh and Dorothy Southworth. He studied at Oxford from
1568 to 1572, when he proceeded B.A. probably from Brasenose
College. During the next year he was converted and went to Douai
to study for the priesthood. He was the first Englishman to
matriculate at Douai, and is said to have taken his M.A. degree
there. While a student he drew up and published a chart of
ecclesiastical history, and was one of the two sent to Reims in
November, 1576, to see if the college could be removed there.
After his ordination at Cambrai (6 April, 1576) he was sent to
Rome. In 1580 he returned to England, visiting Reims on the way,
but was soon arrested. He was tried and condemned to death with
Blessed Edmund Campion and others on 20 November, 1581, but was
not executed, being left in prison, first in King's Bench, then
in the Tower. On 21 January he was exiled with several others,
being sent under escort as far as Abbeville, whence he made his
way to Reims, arriving on 3 March. Shortly afterwards, at the
suggestion of Father Persons, he completed Sander's imperfect
"Origin and Growth of the Anglican Schism". With the intention
of taking his doctorate in divinity he proceeded to the
University of Pont-`a-Mousson in Lorraine, but the plague broke
out, and though he went to Saint-Menehould to escape the
infection, he died of it and was buried there. Dodd in error
ascribes his death to 1586, in which mistake he has been
followed hy the writer in the "Dictionary of National Biography"
and others. After his death the book on the schism was published
by Father Persons, and subsequent editions included two tracts
attributed to Rishton, the one a diary of an anonymous priest in
the Tower (1580-5), which was probably the work of Father John
Hart, S.J.; the other a list of martyrs with later additions by
Persons. Recent publication of the "Tower Bills" makes it
certain that Rishton did not write the diary, and his only other
known works are a tract on the difference between Catholicism
and Protestantism (Douai, 1575) and "Profession of his faith
made manifest and confirmed by twenty-one reasons".
PITTS, De illustribus Angliae scriptoribus (Paris, 1619); DODD,
Church History (Brussels vere Wolverhampton, 1737-42), II, 74, a
very inaccurate account; A WOOD, Athenae Oxonienses, ed. BLISS
(London, 1813 - 20); KINSELLA AND DEANE, The Rise and Progress
of the English Reformation (Dublin, 1827), a translation of
Sander; LEWIS, Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism (London,
1877, the best translation of Sander, the editor accepts the
diary in the Tower as being by Rishton; KNOX, First and Second
Douay Diaries (London, 1878); FOLEY, Records Eng. Prov. S.J., VI
(London 1880); FOSTER, Alumni Oxonienses (Oxford, 1891); GILLOW,
Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. SIMPSON, Edmund Campion, revised ed.
(London, 1896-1907); COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog.; PERSONS,
Memoirs in Catholic Record Society, II, IV (London, 1906); Tower
Bills, ed. POLLEN in Catholic Record Society, III (London,
1906).
EDWIN BURTON
St. Rita of Cascia
St. Rita of Cascia
Born at Rocca Porena in the Diocese of Spoleto, 1386; died at
the Augustinian convent of Cascia, 1456. Feast, 22 May.
Represented as holding roses, or roses and figs, and sometimes
with a wound in her forehead.
According to the "Life" (Acta SS., May, V, 224) written at the
time of her beatification by the Augustinian, Jacob Carelicci,
from two older biographies, she was the daughter of parents
advanced in years and distinguished for charity which merited
them the surname of "Peacemakers of Jesus Christ". Rita's great
desire was to become a nun, but, in obedience to the will of her
parents, she, at the age of twelve, married a man extremely
cruel and ill-tempered. For eighteen years she was a model wife
and mother. When her husband was murdered she tried in vain to
dissuade her twin sons from attempting to take revenge; she
appealed to Heaven to prevent such a crime on their part, and
they were taken away by death, reconciled to God. She applied
for admission to the Augustinian convent at Cascia, but, being a
widow, was refused. By continued entreaties, and, as is related,
by Divine intervention, she gained admission, received the habit
of the order and in due time her profession. As a religious she
was an example for all, excelled in mortifications, and was
widely known for the efficacy of her prayers.
Urban VIII, in 1637, permitted her Mass and Office. On account
of the many miracles reported to have been wrought at her
intercession she received in Spain the title of La Santa de los
impossibiles. She was solemnly canonized 24 May, 1900.
FRANCIS MERSHMAN
Rites
Rites
I. NAME AND DEFINITION
Ritus in classical Latin in means primarily, the form and manner
of any religious observance, so Livy, 1, 7: "Sacra diis aliis
albano ritu, graeco Herculi ut ab Evandro instituta erant
(Romulus) facit"; then, in general, any custom or usage. In
English the word "rite" ordinarily means, the ceremonies,
prayers, and functions of any religious body, whether pagan,
Jewish, Moslem, or Christian. But here we must distinguish two
uses of the word. We speak of any one such religious function as
a rite -- the rite of the blessing of palms, the coronation
rite, etc. In a slightly different sense we call the whole
complex of the services of any Church or group of Churches a
rite-thus we speak of the Roman Rite, Byzantine Rite, and
various Eastern rites. In the latter sense the word is often
considered equivalent to liturgy, which, however, in the older
and more proper use of the word is the Eucharistic Service, or
Mass; hence for a whole series of religious functions "rite" is
preferable.
A Christian rite, in this sense comprises the manner of
performing all services for the worship of God and the
sanctification of men. This includes therefore: (1) the
administration of sacraments, among which the service of the
Holy Eucharist, as being also the Sacrifice, is the most
important element of all; (2) the series of psalms, lessons,
prayers, etc., divided into unities, called "hours", to make up
together the Divine Office; (3) all other religious and
ecclesiastical functions, called sacramentals. This general term
includes blessings of persons (such as a coronation, the
blessing of an abbot, various ceremonies performed for
catechumens, the reconciliation of public penitents, Benediction
of the Blessed Sacrament etc.), blessings of things (the
consecration of a church, altar, chalice, etc.), and a number of
devotions and ceremonies, e.g. processions and the taking of
vows. Sacraments, the Divine Office, and sacramentals (in a wide
sense) make up the rite of any Christian religious body. In the
case of Protestants these three elements must be modified to
suit their theological opinions.
II. DIFFERENCE OF RITE
The Catholic Church has never maintained a principle of
uniformity in rite. Just as there are different local laws in
various parts of the Church, whereas certain fundamental laws
are obeyed by all, so Catholics in different places have, their
own local or national rites; they say prayers and perform
ceremonies that have evolved to suit people of the various
countries, and are only different expressions of the same
fundamental truths. The essential elements of the functions are
obviously the same everywhere, and are observed by all Catholic
rites in obedience to the command of Christ and the Apostles,
thus in every rite is administered with water and the invocation
of the Holy Trinity; the Holy Eucharist is celebrated with bread
and wine over which the words of institution are said; penance
involves the confession of sins. In the amplification of these
essential elements in the accompanying prayers and practical or
ceremonies, various customs have produced the changes which make
the different rites. If any rite did not contain one of the
essential notes of the service it would be invalid in that
point, if its prayers or ceremonies expressed false doctrine it
would he heretical. Such rites would not be tolerated in the
Catholic Church. But, supposing uniformity in essentials and in
faith, the authority of the Church has never insisted on
uniformity of rile; Rome has never resented the fact that other
people have their own expressions of the same truths. The Roman
Rite is the most, venerable, the most archaic, and immeasurably
the most important of all, but our fellow Catholics in the East
have the same right to their traditional liturgies as we have to
ours. Nor can we doubt that other rites too have many beautiful
prayers and ceremonies which add to the richness of Catholic
liturgical inheritance. To lose these would be a misfortune
second only to the loss of the Roman Rite. Leo XIII in his
Encyclical, "Praeclara" (20 June, 1894), expressed the
traditional attitude of the papacy when he wrote of his
reverence for the venerable able rites of the Eastern Churches
and assured the schismatics, whom be invited to reunion, that
there was no jealousy of these things at Rome; that for all
Eastern customs "we shall provide without narrowness."
At the time of the Schism, Photius and Cerularius hurled against
Latin rites and customs every conceivable absurd accusation. The
Latin fast on Saturday, Lenten fare, law of celibacy,
confirmation by a bishop, and especially the use of unleavened
bread for the Holy Eucharist were their accusations against the
West. Latin theologians replied that both were right and
suitable, each for the people who used them, that there was no
need for uniformity in rite if there was unity in faith, that
one good custom did not prove another to be bad, thus defending
their customs without attacking those of the East. But the
Byzantine patriarch was breaking the unity of the Church,
denying the primacy, and plunging the East into schism. In 1054,
when Cerularius's schism had begun, a Latin bishop, Dominic of
Gradus and Aquileia, wrote concerning it to Peter III of
Antioch. He discussed the question Cerularius had raised, the
use of azymes at Mass, and carefully explained that, in using
this bread, Latins did not intend to disparage the Eastern
custom of consecrating leavened bread, for there is a symbolic
reason for either practice. "Because we know that the sacred
mixture of fermented bread is used and lawfully observed by the
most holy and orthodox Fathers of the Eastern Churches, we
faithfully approve of both customs and confirm both by a
spiritual explanation" (Will, "Acta et scripta quae de
controversiis ecclesiae graecae et latinae saec. XI composite
extant", Leipzig, 1861, 207). These words represent very well
the attitude of the papacy towards other rites at all times.
Three points, however, may seem opposed to this and therefore
require some explanation: the supplanting of the old Gallican
Rite by that of Rome almost throughout the West, the
modification of Uniat rites, the suppression of the later
medieval rites.
The existence of the Gallican Rite was a unique anomaly. The
natural principle that rite follows patriarchate has been
sanctioned by universal tradition with this one exception. Since
the first organization of patriarchates there has been an ideal
of uniformity throughout each. The close bond that joined
bishops and metropolitans to their patriarch involved the use of
his liturgy, just as the priests of a diocese follow the rite of
their bishop. Before the arbitrary imposition of the Byzantine
Rite on all Orthodox Churches no Eastern patriarch would have
tolerated a foreign liturgy in his domain. All Egypt used the
Alexandrine Rite, all Syria that of Antioch-Jerusalem, all Asia
Minor, Greece, and the Balkan lands, that of Constantinople. But
in the vast Western lands that make up the Roman patriarchate,
north of the Alps and in Spain, various local rites developed,
all bearing a strong resemblance to each other, yet different
from that of Rome itself. These form the Gallican family of
liturgies. Abbot Cabrol, Dom Cagin, and other writers of their
school think that the Gallican Rite was really the original
Roman Rite before Rome modified it Paleographie musicale V,
Solesmes, 1889; Cabrol, Les origines liturgiques Paris 1906).
Most writers, however, maintain with Mgr Duchesne ("Origines du
culte Chretien", Paris, 1898, 8489), that the Gallican Rite is
Eastern, Antiochene in origin. Certainly it has numerous
Antiochene peculiarities (see GALLICAN RITE), and when it
emerged as a complete rite in the sixth and seventh centuries
(in Germanus of Paris, etc.), it was different from that in use
at Rome at the time. Non-Roman liturgies were used at Milan,
Aquileia, even at Gobble at the gates of the Roman province
(Innocent I's letter to Decentius of Eugubium; Ep. xxv, in P.
L., XX, 551-61). Innocent (401-17) naturally protested against
the use of a foreign rite in Umbria; occasionally other popes
showed some desire for uniformity in their patriarchate, but the
great majority regarded the old state of things with perfect
indifference. When other bishops asked them how ceremonies were
performed at Rome they sent descriptions (so Pope Vigilius to
Profuturus of Braga in 538; Jaffe, "Regesta Rom. Pont.", n.
907), but were otherwise content to allow different uses. St.
Gregory I (590-604) showed no anxiety to make the new English
Church conform to Rome, but told St. Augustine to take whatever
rites he thought most suitable from Rome or Gaul (Ep. xi, 64, in
P. L., LXXVII, 1186-7).
Thus for centuries the popes alone among patriarchs did not
enforce their own rite even throughout their patriarchate. The
gradual romanization and subsequent disappearance of Gallican
rites were (beginning in the eighth and ninth centuries), the
work not of the popes but of local bishops and kings who
naturally wished to conform to the use of the Apostolic See. The
Gallican Rites varied everywhere (Charles the Great gives this
as his reason for adopting the Roman Use; see Hauck,
"Kirchengesch. Deutschlands", 11, 107 sq.), and the inevitable
desire for at least local uniformity arose. The bishops'
frequent visits to Rome brought them in contact with the more
dignified ritual observed by their chief at the tomb of the
Apostles, and they were naturally influenced by it in their
return home. The local bishops in synods ordered conformity to
Rome. The romanizing movement in the West came from below. In
the Frankish kingdom Charles the Great, as part of his scheme of
unifying, sent to Adrian I for copies of the Roman books,
commanding their use throughout his domain. In the history of
the substitution of the Roman Rite for the Gallican the popes
appear as spectators, except perhaps in Spain and much later in
Milan. The final result was the application in the West of the
old principle, for since the pope was undoubtedly Patriarch of
the West it was inevitable, that sooner or later the West should
conform to his rite. The places, however, that really cared for
their old local rites (Milan, Toledo) retain them even now.
It is true that the changes made in some Uniat rites by the
Roman correctors have not always corresponded to the best
liturgical tradition. There are as Mgr Duchesne says,
"corrections inspired by zeal that was not always according to
knowledge " (Origines du culte, 2nd ed., 69), but they are much
fewer than is generally supposed and have never been made with
the idea of romanizing. Despite the general prejudice that Uniat
rites are mere mutilated hybrids, the strongest impression from
the study of them is how little has been changed. Where there is
no suspicion of false doctrine, as in the Byzantine Rite, the
only change made was the restoration of the name of the pope
where the schismatics had erased it. Although the question of
the procession of the Holy Ghost has been so fruitful a source
of dispute between Rome and Constantinople the Filioque clause
was certainly not contained in the original creed, nor did the
Roman authorities insist on its addition. So Rome is content
that Eastern Catholics should keep their traditional form
unchanged, though they believe the Catholic doctrine. The
Filioque is only sung by those Byzantine Uniats who wish it
themselves, as the Ruthenians. Other rites were altered in
places, not to romanize but only to eradicate passages suspected
of heresy. All other Uniats came from Nestorian, Monophysite, or
Monothelete sects, whose rites had been used for centuries by
heretics. Hence, when bodies of these people wished to return to
the Catholic Church their services were keenly studied at Rome
for possible heresy. In most cases corrections were absolutely
necessary. The Nestorian Liturgy, for instance, did not contain
the words of institution, which had to be added to the Liturgy
of the converted Chaldees. The Monophysite Jacobites, Copts, and
Armenians have in the Trisagion the fateful clause: "who wast
crucified for us", which has been the watchword of Monophysitism
ever since Peter the Dyer of Antioch added it (470-88). If only
because of its associations this could not remain in a Catholic
Liturgy.
In some instances, however, the correctors were over scrupulous.
In the Gregorian Armenian Liturgy the words said by the deacon
at the expulsion of the catechumens, long before the
Consecration: "The body of the Lord and the blood of the Saviour
are set forth (or "are before us") (Brightman, "Eastern
Liturgies", 430) were in the Uniat Rite changed to: "are about
to be before us". The Uniats also omit the words sung by the
Gregorian choir before the Anaphora: "Christ has been manifested
amongst us (has appeared in the midst of us)" (ibid., 434), and
further change the cherubic hymn because of its anticipation of
the Consecration. These misplacements are really harmless when
understood, yet any reviser would be shocked by such strong
cases. In many other ways also the Armenian Rite shows evidence
of Roman influence. It has unleavened bread, our confession and
Judica psalm at the beginning of Mass, a Lavabo before the
Canon, the last Gospel, etc. But so little is this the effect of
union with Rome that the schismatical Armenians have all these
points too. They date from the time of the Crusades, when the
Armenians, vehemently opposed to the Orthodox, made many
advances towards Catholics. So also the strong romanizing of the
Maronite Liturgy was entirely the work of the Maronites
themselves, when, surrounded by enemies in the East, they too
turned towards the great Western Church, sought her communion,
and eagerly copied her practices. One can hardly expect the pope
to prevent other Churches from imitating Roman customs. Yet in
the case of Uniats he does even this. A Byzantine Uniat priest
who uses unleavened bread in his Liturgy incurs excommunication.
The only case in which an ancient Eastern rite has been wilfully
romanized is that of the Uniat Malabar Christians, where it was
not Roman authority but the misguided zeal of Alexius de
Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, and his Portuguese advisers at the
Synod of Diamper (1599) which spoiled the old Malabar Rite.
The Western medieval rites are in no case (except the Ambrosian
and Mozarabic Rites), really independent of Rome. They are
merely the Roman Rite with local additions and modifications,
most of which are to its disadvantage. They are late, exuberant,
and inferior variants, whose ornate additions and long
interpolated tropes, sequences, and farcing destroy the
dignified simplicity of the old liturgy. In 1570 the revisers
appointed by the Council of Trent restored with scrupulous care
and, even in the light of later studies, brilliant success the
pure Roman Missal, which Pius V ordered should alone be used
wherever the Roman Rite is followed. It was a return to an older
and purer form. The medieval rites have no doubt a certain
archaeological interest; but where the Roman Rite is used it is
best to use it in its pure form. This too only means a return to
the principle that rite should follow patriarchate. The reform
was made very prudently, Pius V allowing any rite that could
prove an existence of two centuries to remain (Bull "Quo
primum", 19 July, 1570, printed first in the Missal), thus
saving any local use that had a certain antiquity. Some dioceses
(e.g. Lyons) and religious orders (Dominicans, Carthusians,
Carmelites), therefore keep their special uses, and the
independent Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites, whose loss would have
been a real misfortune (see LITURGY, MASS, LITURGY OF THE) still
remain.
Rome then by no means imposed uniformity of rite. Catholics are
united in faith and discipline, but in their manner of
performing the sacred functions there is room for variety based
on essential unity, as there was in the first centuries. There
are cases (e.g. the Georgian Church) where union with Rome has
saved the ancient use, while the schismatics have been forced to
abandon it by the centralizing policy of their authorities (in
this case Russia). The ruthless destruction of ancient rites in
favour of uniformity has been the work not of Rome but of the
schismatical patriarchs of Constantinople. Since the thirteenth
century Constantinople in its attempt to make itself the one
centre of the Orthodox Church has driven out the far more
venerable and ancient Liturgies of Antioch and Alexandria and
has compelled all the Orthodox to use its own late derived rite.
The Greek Liturgy of St. Mark has ceased to exist; that of St.
James has been revived for one or two days in the year at
Zakynthos and Jerusalem only (see ANTIOCHENE LITURGY). The
Orthodox all the world over must follow the Rite of
Constantinople. In this unjustifiable centralization we have a
defiance of the old principle, since Antioch, Jerusalem,
Alexandria, Cyprus, in no way belong to the Byzantine
Patriarchate. Those who accuse the papacy of sacrificing
everything for the sake of uniformity mistake the real offender,
the oecumenical patriarch.
III. THE OLD RITES (CATHOLIC AND SCHISMATICAL)
A complete table of the old rites with an account of their
mutual relations will be found in the article LITURGY. Here it
need only be added that there is a Uniat body using each of the
Eastern rites. There is no ancient rite that is not represented
within the Catholic Church. That rite, liturgical language, and
religious body connote three totally different ideas has been
explained at length in the article GREEK RITES. The rite a
bishop or priest follows is no test at all of his religion.
Within certain broad limits a member of any Eastern sect might
use any rite, for the two categories of rite and religion cross
each other continually. They represent quite different
classifications: for instance, liturgically all Armenians belong
to one class, theologically a Uniat Armenian belongs to the same
class as Latins, Chaldees, Maronites, etc., and has nothing to
do with his Gregorian (Monophysite) fellow-countrymen (see
EASTERN CHURCHES). Among Catholics the rite forms a group; each
rite is used by a branch of the Church that is thereby a
special, though not separate, entity. So within the Catholic
unity we speak of local Churches whose characteristic in each
case is the rite they use. Rite is the only basis of this
classification. Not all Armenian Catholics or Byzantine Uniats
obey the same patriarch or local authority; yet they are
"Churches" individual provinces of the same great Church,
because each is bound together by their own rites. In the West
there is the vast Latin Church, in the East the Byzantine,
Chaldean, Coptic, Syrian, Maronite, Armenian, and Malabar Uniat
Churches. It is of course possible to subdivide and to speak of
the national Churches (of Italy, France, Spain, etc.) under one
of these main bodies (see LATIN CHURCH). In modern times rite
takes the place of the old classification in patriarchates and
provinces.
IV. PROTESTANT RITES
The Reformation in the sixteenth century produced a new and
numerous series of rites, which are in no sense continuations of
the old development of liturgy. They do not all represent
descendants of the earliest rites, nor can they be classified in
the table of genus and species that includes all the old
liturgies of Christendom. The old rites are unconscious and
natural developments of earlier ones and go back to the original
fluid rite of the first centuries (see LITURGY). The Protestant
rites are deliberate compositions made by the various Reformers
to suit their theological positions, as new services were
necessary for their prayer meetings. No old liturgy could be
used by people with their ideas. The old rites contain the
plainest statements about the Real Presence, the Eucharistic
Sacrifice, prayers to saints, and for the dead, which are denied
by Protestants. The Reformation occurred in the West, where the
Roman Rite in its various local forms had been used for
centuries. No Reformed sect could use the Roman Mass; the
medieval derived rites were still more ornate, explicit, in the
Reformers' sense superstitious. So all the Protestant sects
abandoned the old Mass and the other ritual functions, composing
new services which have no continuity, no direct relation to any
historic liturgy. However, it is hardly possible to compose an
entirely new Christian service without borrowing anything.
Moreover, in many cases the Reformers wished to make the breach
with the past as little obvious as could be. So many of their
new services contain fragments of old rites; they borrowed such
elements as seemed to them harmless, composed and re-arranged
and evolved in some cases services that contain parts of the old
ones in a new order. On the whole it is surprising that they
changed as much as they did. It would have been possible to
arrange an imitation of the Roman Mass that would have been much
more like it than anything they produced.
They soon collected fragments of all kinds of rites, Eastern,
Roman, Mozarabic, etc., which with their new prayers they
arranged into services that are hopeless liturgical tangles.
This is specially true of the Anglican Prayer-books. In some
cases, for instance, the placing of the Gloria after the
Communion in Edward VI's second Prayer-book, there seems to be
no object except a love of change. The first Lutheran services
kept most of the old order. The Calvinist arrangements had from
the first no connexion with any earlier rite. The use of the
vulgar tongue was a great principle with the Reformers. Luther
and Zwingli at first compromised with Latin, but soon the old
language disappeared in all Protestant services. Luther in 1523
published a tract, "Of the order of the service in the parish"
("Von ordenung gottis diensts [sic] ynn der gemeine" in Clemen,
"Quellenbuch zur prakt. Theologie", 1, 24-6), in which he
insists on preaching, rejects all "unevangelical" parts of the
Mass, such as the Offertory and idea of sacrifice, invocation of
saints, and ceremonies, and denounces private Masses
(Winkelmessen), Masses for the dead, and the idea of the priest
as a mediator. Later in the same year he issued a "Formula
missae et communionis pro ecclesia Vittebergensi" (ibid.,
26-34), in which he omits the preparatory prayers, Offertory,
all the Canon to qui pridie, from Unde et memores to the Pater,
the embolism of the Lord's Prayer, fraction, Ite missa est. The
Preface is shortened, the Sanctus is to be sung after the words
of institution which are to be said aloud, and meanwhile the
elevation may be made because of the weak who would be offended
by its sudden omission (ibid., IV, 30). At the end he adds a new
ceremony, a blessing from Num., vi, 24-6. Latin remained in this
service.
Karlstadt began to hold vernacular services at Wittenberg since
1521. In 1524 Kaspar Kantz published a German service on the
lines of Luther's "Formula missae" (Lohe, "Sammlung liturgischer
Formulaere III, Noerdlingen, 1842, 37 sq.); so also Thomas
Muenzer the Anabaptist, in 1523 at Alstedt (Smend, "Die evang.
deutschen Messen", 1896, 99 sq.). A number of compromises began
at this time among the Protestants, services partly Latin and
partly vernacular (Rietschel, "Lehrbuch der Liturgik", 1,
404-9). Vernacular hymns took the place of the old Proper
(Introit, etc.). At last in 1526 Luther issued an entirely new
German service, "Deudsche Messe und ordnung Gottis diensts"
(Clemen, op. cit., 3443), to be used on Sundays, whereas the
"Formula missae", in Latin, might be kept for week-days. In the
"Deudsche Messe" "a spiritual song or German psalm" replaces the
Introit, then follows Kyrie eleison in Greek three times only.
There is no Gloria. Then come the Collects, Epistle, a German
hymn, Gospel, Creed, Sermon, Paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer,
words of institution with the account of the Last Supper from I
Cor, xi, 20-9, Elevation (always kept by Luther himself in spite
of Karlstadt and most of his colleagues), Communion, during
which the Sanctus or a hymn is sung, Collects, the blessing from
Num., vi, 24-6. Except the Kyrie, all is in German; azyme bread
is still used but declared indifferent; Communion is given under
both kinds, though Luther preferred the unmixed chalice. This
service remained for a long time the basis of the Lutheran
Communion function, but the local branches of the sect from the
beginning used great freedom in modifying it. The Pietistic
movement in the eighteenth century, with its scorn for forms and
still more the present Rationalism, have left very little of
Luther's scheme. A vast number of Agendae, Kirchenordnungen, and
Prayer-books issued by various Lutheran consistories from the
sixteenth century to our own time contain as many forms of
celebrating the Lord's Supper. Pastors use their own discretion
to a great extent, and it is impossible to foresee what service
will be held in any Lutheran church. An arrangement of hymns,
Bible readings (generally the Nicene Creed), a sermon, then the
words of institution and Communion, prayers (often extempore),
more hymns, and the blessing from Num., vi, make up the general
outline of the service.
Zwingli was more radical than Luther. In 1523 he kept a form of
the Latin Mass with the omission of all he did not like in it
("De canone missae epichiresis" in Clemen, op. cit., 43-7),
chiefly because the town council of Zurich feared too sudden a
change, but in 1525 he overcame their scruples and issued his
"Action oder bruch (=Brauch) des nachtmals" (ibid., 47-50). This
is a complete breach with the Mass an entirely new service. On
Maundy Thursday the men and women are to receive communion, on
Good Friday those of "middle age", on Easter Sunday only the
oldest (die alleraltesten). These are the only occasions on
which the service is to be held. The arrangement is: a prayer
said by the pastor facing the people, reading of 1 Cor, xi,
20-9, Gloria in Excelsis, "The Lord be with you" and its answer,
reading of John, vi, 47-63, Apostles' Creed, an address to the
people, Lord's Prayer, extempore prayer, words of institution,
Communion (under both kinds in wooden vessels), Ps. cxiii, a
short prayer of thanksgiving; the pastor says: "Go in peace". On
other Sundays there is to be no Communion at all, but a service
consisting of prayer, Our Father, sermon, general confession,
absolution, prayer, blessing. Equally radical was the Calvinist
sect. In 1535 through Farel's influence the Mass was abolished
in Geneva. Three times a year only was there to be a
commemorative Supper in the baldest form; on other Sundays the
sermon was to suffice. In 1542 Calvin issued "La forme des
prieres ecclesiastiques" " (Clemen, op. cit., 51-8), a
supplement to which describes "La maniere de celebrer la cene"
(ibid., 51-68). This rite, to be celebrated four times yearly,
consists of the reading of 1 Cor, xi, an excommunication of
various kinds of sinners, and long exhortation. "This being
done, the ministers distribute the bread and the cup to the
people, taking care that they approach reverently and in good
order" (ibid., 60). Meanwhile a psalm is sung or a lesson read
from the Bible, a thanksgiving follows (ibid., 55), and a final
blessing. Except for their occurrence in the reading of I Cor,
xi, the words of institution are not said; there is no kind of
Communion form. It is hardly possible to speak of rite at all in
the Calvinist body.
The other ritual functions kept by Protestants (baptism,
confirmation as an introduction to Communion marriage, funerals,
appointment of ministers) went through much the same
development. The first Reformers expunged and modified the old
rites, then gradually more and more was changed until little
remained of a rite in our sense. Psalms, hymns, prayers,
addresses to the people in various combinations make up these
functions. The Calvinists have always been more radical than the
Lutherans. The development and multiple forms of these services
may be seen in Rietschel, "Lehrbuch der Liturgik", II, and
Clemen, "Quellenbuch zur praktischen Theologie", I (texts only).
The Anglican body stands somewhat apart from the others,
inasmuch as it has a standard book, almost unaltered since 1662.
The first innovation was the introduction of an English litany
under Henry VIII in 1544. Cranmer was preparing further changes
when Henry VIII died (see Procter and Frere, "A New History of
the Book of Common Prayer" London, 1908, 29-35). Under Edward VI
(1547-53) many changes were made at once: blessings, holy water,
the creeping to the Cross were abolished, Mass was said in
English (ibid., 39-41), and in 1549 the first Prayer-book,
arranged by Cranmer, was issued. Much of the old order of the
Mass remained, but the Canon disappeared to make way for a new
prayer from Lutheran sources. The "Koelnische Kirchenordnung"
composed by Melanchthon and Butzer supplied part of the prayers.
The changes are Lutheran rather than Calvinist. In 1552 the
second Prayerbook took the place of the first. This is the
present Anglican Book of Common Prayer and represents a much
stronger Protestant tendency. The commandments take the place of
the Introit and Kyrie (kept in the first book), the Gloria is
moved to the end, the Consecration-prayer is changed so as to
deny the Sacrifice and Real Presence, the form at the Communion
becomes: "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for
thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving"
(similarly for the chalice). In 1558 Elizabeth's Government
issued a new edition of the second Prayer-book of Edward VI with
slight modifications of its extreme Protestantism. Both the
Edwardine forms for communion are combined. In 1662 a number of
revisions were made. In particular the ordination forms received
additions defining the order to be conferred. A few slight
modifications (as to the lessons read, days no longer to be
kept) have been made since.
The Anglican Communion service follows this order: The Lord's
Prayer, Collect for purity, Ten Commandments, Collect for the
king and the one for the day, Epistle, Gospel, Creed, sermon,
certain sentences from the Bible (meanwhile a collection is
made), prayer for the Church militant, address to the people
about Communion, general confession and absolution, the
comfortable words (Matt., xi, 28; John, iii, 16; 1 Tim., i, 15;
1 John, ii, 1), Preface, prayer ("We do not presume"),
Consecration-prayer, Communion at once, Lord's Prayer,
Thanksgiving-prayer, "Glory be to God on high", blessing. Very
little of the arrangement of the old Mass remains in this
service, for all the ideas Protestants reject are carefully
excluded. The Book of Common Prayer contains all the official
services of the Anglican Church, baptism, the catechism,
confirmation, marriage, funeral, ordination, articles of
religion, etc. It has also forms of morning and evening prayer,
composed partly from the Catholic Office with many modifications
and very considerably reduced. The Episcopal Church in Scotland
has a Prayer-book, formed in 1637 and revised in 1764, which is
more nearly akin to the first Prayer-book of Edward VI and is
decidedly more High Church in tone. In 1789 the Protestant
Episcopal Church of America accepted a book based on the English
one of 1662, but taking some features from the Scotch services.
The Anglican service-books are now the least removed from
Catholic liturgies of those used by any Protestant body. But
this is saying very little. The Non-jurors in the eighteenth
century produced a number of curious liturgies which in many
ways go back to Catholic principles, but have the fault common
to all Protestant services of being conscious and artificial
arrangements of elements selected from the old rites, instead of
natural developments (Overton, "The Non-jurors", London, 1902,
ch. vi). The Irvingites have a not very-successful service-book
of this type. Many Methodists use the Anglican book; the other
later sects have for the most part nothing but loose
arrangements of hymns, readings, extempore prayers, and a sermon
that can hardly be called rites in any sense.
V. LITURGICAL LANGUAGE
The language of any Church or rite, as distinct from the vulgar
tongue, is that used in the official services and may or may not
be the common language. For instance the Rumanian Church uses
liturgically the ordinary language of the country, while Latin
is used by the Latin Church for her Liturgy without regard to
the mother tongue of the clergy or congregation. There are many
cases of an intermediate state between these extremes, in which
the liturgical language is an older form of the vulgar tongue,
sometimes easily, sometimes hardly at all, understood by people
who have not studied it specially. Language is not rite.
Theoretically any rite may exist in any language. Thus the
Armenian, Coptic, and East Syrian Rites are celebrated always in
one language, the Byzantine Rite is used in a great number of
tongues, and in other rites one language sometimes enormously
preponderates but is not used exclusively. This is determined by
church discipline. The Roman Liturgy is generally celebrated in
Latin. The reason why a liturgical language began to be used and
is still retained must be distinguished in liturgical science
from certain theological or mystic considerations by which its
use may be explained or justified. Each liturgical language was
first chosen because it was the natural language of the people.
But languages change and the Faith spreads into countries where
other tongues are spoken. Then either the authorities are of a
more practical mind and simply translate the prayers into the
new language, or the conservative instinct, always strong in
religion, retains for the liturgy an older language no longer
used in common life. The Jews showed this instinct, when, though
Hebrew was a dead language after the Captivity, they continued
to use it in the Temple and the synagogues in the time of
Christ, and still retain it in their services. The Moslem, also
conservative, reads the Koran in classical Arabic, whether he be
Turk, Persian, or Afghan. The translation of the church service
is complicated by the difficulty of determining when the
language in which it is written, as Latin in the West and
Hellenistic Greek in the East, has ceased to be the vulgar
tongue. Though the Byzantine services were translated into the
common language of the Slavonic people that they might be
understood, this form of the language (Church-Slavonic) is no
longer spoken, but is gradually becoming as unintelligible as
the original Greek. Protestants make a great point of using
languages "understanded of the people", yet the language of
Luther's Bible and the Anglican Prayerbook is already archaic.
History
When Christianity appeared Hellenistic Greek was the common
language spoken around the Mediterranean. St. Paul writes to
people in Greece, Asia Minor, and Italy in Greek. When the
parent rites were finally written down in the fourth and fifth
centuries Eastern liturgical language had slightly changed. The
Greek of these liturgies (Apost. Const. VIII, St. James, St.
Mark, the Byzantine Liturgy) was that of the Fathers of the
time, strongly coloured by the Septuagint and the New Testament.
These liturgies remained in this form and have never been recast
in any modern Greek dialect. Like the text of the Bible, that of
a liturgy once fixed becomes sacred. The formulae used Sunday
after Sunday are hallowed by too sacred associations to be
changed as long as more or less the same language is used. The
common tongue drifts and develops, but the liturgical forms are
stereotyped. In the East and West, however, there existed
different principles in this matter. Whereas in the West there
was no literary language but Latin till far into the Middle
Ages, in the East there were such languages, totally unlike
Greek, that had a position, a literature, a dignity of their own
hardly inferior to that of Greek itself. In the West every
educated man spoke and wrote Latin almost to the Renaissance. To
translate the Liturgy into a Celtic or Teutonic language would
have seemed as absurd as to write a prayerbook now in some
vulgar slang. The East was never hellenized as the West was
latinized. Great nations, primarily Egypt and Syria, kept their
own languages and literatures as part of their national
inheritance. The people, owing no allegiance to the Greek
language, had no reason to say their prayers in it, and the
Liturgy was translated into Coptic in Egypt, into Syriac in
Syria and Palestine. So the principle of a uniform liturgical
language was broken in the East and people were accustomed to
hear the church service in different languages in different
places. This uniformity once broken never became an ideal to
Eastern Christians and the way was opened for an indefinite
multiplication of liturgical tongues.
In the fourth and fifth centuries the Rites of Antioch and
Alexandria were used in Greek in the great towns where people
spoke Greek, in Coptic or Syriac among peasants in the country.
The Rite of Asia Minor and Constantinople was always in Greek,
because here there was no rival tongue. But when the Faith was
preached in Armenia (from Caesarea) the Armenians in taking over
the Caesarean Rite translated it of course into their own
language. And the great Nestorian Church in East Syria, evolving
her own literature in Syriac, naturally used that language for
her church services too. This diversity of tongues was by no
means parallel to diversity of sect or religion. People who
agreed entirely in faith, who were separated by no schism,
nevertheless said their prayers in different languages.
Melchites in Syria clung entirely to the Orthodox faith of
Constantinople and used the Byzantine Rite, yet used it
translated into Syriac. The process of translating the Liturgy
continued later.. After the Schism of the eleventh century, the
Orthodox Church, unlike Rome, insisted on uniformity of rite
among her members. All the Orthodox use the Byzantine Rite, yet
have no idea of one language. When the Slavs were converted the
Byzantine Rite was put into Old Slavonic for them; when Arabic
became the only language spoken in Egypt And Syria, it became
the language of the Liturgy in those countries. For a long time
all the people north of Constantinople used Old Slavonic in
church, although the dialects they spoke gradually drifted away
from it. Only the Georgians, who are Slavs in no sense at all,
used their own language. In the seventeenth century as part of
the growth of Rumanian national feeling came a great insistence
on the fact that they were not Slavs either. They Wished to be
counted among Western, Latin races, so they translated their
liturgical books into their own Romance language. These
represent the old classical liturgical languages in the East.
The Monophysite Churches have kept the old tongues even when no
longer spoken; thus they use Coptic in Egypt, Syriac in Syria,
Armenian in Armenia. The Nestorians and their daughter-Church in
India (Malabar) also use Syriac. The Orthodox have four or five
chief liturgical languages: Greek, Arabic, Church-Slavonic, and
Rumanian. Georgian has almost died out. Later Russian missions
have very much increased the number. They have translated the
same Byzantine Rite into German, Esthonian, and Lettish for the
Baltic provinces Finnish and Tartar for converts in Finland and
Siberia, Eskimo, a North American Indian dialect, Chinese, and
Japanese. Hence no general principle of liturgical language can
be established for Eastern Churches, though the Nestorians and
Monophysites have evolved something like the Roman principle and
kept their old languages in the liturgy, in spite of change in
common talk. The Orthodox services are not, however, everywhere
understood by the people, for since these older versions were
made language has gone on developing. In the case of converts of
a totally different race, such as Chinese or Red Indians, there
is an obvious line to cross at once and there is no difficulty
about translating what would otherwise be totally unintelligible
to them. At home the spoken language gradually drifts away from
the form stereotyped in the Liturgy, and it is difficult to
determine when the Liturgy ceases to be understood. In more
modern times with the growth of new sects the conservative
instinct of the old Churches has grown. The Greek, Arabic, and
Church-Slavonic texts are jealously kept unchanged though in all
cases they have become archaic and difficult to follow by
uneducated people. Lately the question of liturgical language
has become one of the chief difficulties in Macedonia.
Especially since the Bulgarian Schism the Phanar at
Constantinople insists on Greek in church as a sign of
Hellenism, while the people clamour for Old-Slavonic or
Rumanian.
In the West the whole situation is different. Greek was first
used at Rome, too. About the third century the services were
translated into the vulgar tongue, Latin (see MASS, LITURGY OF
THE), which has remained ever since. There was no possible rival
language for many centuries. As the Western barbarians became
civilized they accepted a Latin culture in everything, having no
literatures of their own. Latin was the language of all educated
people, so it was used in church, as it was for books or even
letter-writing. The Romance people drifted from Latin to
Italian, Spanish, French, etc., so gradually that no one can say
when Latin became a dead language. The vulgar tongue was used by
peasants and ignorant people only; but all books were written,
lectures given, and solemn speeches made in Latin. Even Dante
(d. 1321) thought it necessary to write an apology for Italian
(De vulgari eloquentia). So for centuries the Latin language was
that, not of the Catholic Church, but of the Roman patriarchate.
When people at last realized that it was dead, it was too late
to change it. Around it had gathered the associations of Western
Christendom; the music of the Roman Rite was composed and sung
only to a Latin text; and it is even now the official tongue of
he Roman Court. The ideal of uniformity in rite extended to
language also, so when the rebels of the, sixteenth century
threw over the old language, sacred from its long use, as they
threw over the old rite and Id laws, the Catholic Church,
conservative in all these things, would not give way to them. As
a bond of union among the many nations who make up he Latin
patriarchate, she retains the old Latin tongue with one or two
small exceptions. Along he Eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea the
Roman Rite has been used in Slavonic (with the Glagolitic
letters) since the eleventh century, and the Roman Mass is said
in Greek on rare occasions at Rome.
It is a question how far one may speak of a special liturgical
Latin language. The writers of our Collects, hymns, Prefaces,
etc., wrote simply in the language of their time. The style of
the various elements of the Mass and Divine Office varies
greatly according to the time at which they were written. We
have texts from the fourth or fifth to the twentieth century.
Liturgical Latin then is simply late Christian Latin of various
periods. On the other hand the Liturgy had an influence on the
style of Christian Latin writers second only to that of the
Bible. First we notice Hebraisms (per omnia soecula soeculorum),
many Greek constructions (per Dominum nostrum, meaning" for the
sake of", dia) and words (Eucharistia, litania, episcopus),
expressions borrowed from Biblical metaphors (pastor, liber
proedestinationis, crucifigere carnem, lux, vita, Agnus Dei),
and words in a new Christian sense (humilitas, compunctio,
caritas). St. Jerome in his Vulgate more than any one else
helped to form liturgical style. His constructions and phrases
occur repeatedly in the non-Biblical parts of the Mass and
Office. The style of the fifth and sixth centuries (St. Leo I,
Celestine I, Gregory I) forms perhaps the main stock of our
services. The mediaeval Schoolmen (St. Thomas Aquinas) and their
technical terminology have influenced much of the later parts,
and the Latin of the Renaissance is an important element that in
many cases overlays the ruder forms of earlier times. Of this
Renaissance Latin many of the Breviary lessons are typical
examples; a comparison of the earlier forms of the hymns with
the improved forms drawn up by order of Urban VIII (1623-44)
will convince any one how disastrous its influence was. The
tendency to write inflated phrases has not yet stopped: almost
any modern Collect compared with the old ones in the "Gelasian
Sacramentary" will show how much we have lost of style in our
liturgical prayers.
Use of Latin
The principle of using Latin in church is in no way fundamental.
It is a question of discipline that evolved differently in East
and West, and may not be defended as either primitive or
universal. The authority of the Church could change the
liturgical language at any time without sacrificing any
important principle. The idea of a universal tongue may seem
attractive, but is contradicted by the fact that the Catholic
Church uses eight or nine different liturgical languages. Latin
preponderates as a result of the greater influence of the Roman
patriarchate and its rite, caused by the spread of Western
Europeans into new lands and the unhappy schism of so many
Easterns (see Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 431).
Uniformity of rite or liturgical language has never been a
Catholic ideal, nor was Latin chosen deliberately as a sacred
language. Had there been any such idea the language would have
been Hebrew or Greek.
The objections of Protestants to a Latin Liturgy can be answered
easily enough. An argument often made from I Cor., xiv, 4-18, is
of no value. The whole passage treats of quite another thing,
prophesying in tongues that no one understands, not even the
speaker (see 14: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth
but my understanding is without fruit"). The other argument,
from practical convenience, from the loss to the people who do
not understand what is being said, has some value. The Church
has never set up a mysterious unintelligible language as an
ideal. There is no principle of sacerdotal mysteries from which
the layman is shut out. In spite of the use of Latin the people
have means of understanding the service. That they might do so
still better if everything were in the vulgar tongue may be
admitted, but in making this change the loss would probably be
greater than the gain.
By changing the language of the Liturgy we should lose the
principle of uniformity in the Roman patriarchate. According to
the ancient principle that rite follows patriarchate, the
Western rite should be that of the Western patriarch, the Roman
Bishop, who uses the local rite of the city of Rome. There is a
further advantage in using it in his language, so the use of
Latin in the West came about naturally and is retained through
conservative instinct. It is not so in the East. There is a
great practical advantage to travellers, whether priests or
laymen, in finding their rite exactly the same everywhere. An
English priest in Poland or Portugal could not say his Mass
unless he and the server had a common language. The use of Latin
all over the Roman patriarchate is a very obvious and splendid
witness of unity. Every Catholic traveller in a country of which
he does not know the language has felt the comfort of finding
that in church at least everything is familiar and knows that in
a Catholic church of his own rite he is at home anywhere.
Moreover, the change of liturgical language would be a break
with the past. It is a witness of antiquity of which a Catholic
may well be proud that in Mass to-day we are still used to the
very words that Anselm, Gregory, Leo sang in their cathedrals. A
change of language would also abolish Latin chant. Plainsong, as
venerable a relic of antiquity as any part of the ritual, is
composed for the Latin text only, supposes always the Latin
syllables and the Latin accent, and becomes a caricature when it
is forced into another language with different rules of accent.
These considerations of antiquity and universal use always made
proportionately (since there are the Eastern Uniat rites) but
valid for the Roman patriarchate may well outweigh the practical
convenience of using the chaos of modern languages in the
liturgy. There is also an aesthetic advantage in Latin. The
splendid dignity of the short phrases with their rhythmical
accent and terse style redolent of the great Latin Fathers, the
strange beauty of the old Latin hymns, the sonorous majesty of
the Vulgate, all these things that make the Roman Rite so
dignified, so characteristic of the old Imperial City where the
Prince of the Apostles set up his throne, would be lost
altogether in modern English or French translations. The
impossibility of understanding Latin is not so great. It is not
a secret, unknown tongue, and till quite lately every educated
person understood it. It is still taught in every school. The
Church does not clothe her prayers in a secret language, but
rather takes it for granted that people understand Latin. If
Catholics learned enough Latin to follow the very easy style of
the Church language all difficulty would be solved. For those
who cannot take even this trouble there is the obvious solution
of a translation. The Missal in English is one of the easiest
books to procure; the ignorant may follow in that the prayers
that lack of education prevents their understanding without it.
The liturgical languages used by Catholics are:
1. Latin in the Roman, Milanese, and Mozarabic Rites (except in
parts of Dalmatia).
2. Greek in the Byzantine Rite (not exclusively).
3. Syriac in the Syrian, Maronite, Chaldean, and Malabar Rites.
4. Coptic in the Coptic Rite.
5. Armenian by all the Churches of that rite.
6. Arabic by the Melchites (Byzantine Rite).
7. Slavonic by Slavs of the Byzantine Rite and (in Glagolitic
letters) in the Roman Rite in Dalmatia.
8. Georgian (Byzantine Rite).
9. Rumanian (Byzantine Rite).
VI. LITURGICAL SCIENCE
A. Rubrics
The most obvious and necessary study for ecclesiastical persons
is that of the laws that regulate the performance of liturgical
functions. From this point of view liturgical study is a branch
of canon law. The rules for the celebration of the Holy
Mysteries, administration of sacraments, etc., are part of the
positive law of the Church, just as much as the laws about
benefices, church property, or fasting, and oblige those whom
they concern under pain of sin. As it is therefore the duty of
persons in Holy orders to know them, they are studied in all
colleges and seminaries as part of the training of future
priests, and candidates are examined in them before ordination.
Because of its special nature and complication liturgical
science in this sense is generally treated apart from the rest
of canon law and is joined to similar practical matters (such as
preaching, visiting the sick, etc.) to make up the science of
pastoral theology. The sources from which it is learned are
primarily the rubrics of the liturgical books (the Missal,
Breviary, and Ritual). There are also treatises which explain
and arrange these rubrics, adding to them from later decrees of
the S. Congregation of Rites. Of these Martinucci has not yet
been displaced as the most complete and authoritative, Baldeschi
has long been a favourite and has been translated into English,
De Herdt is a good standard book, quite sound and clear as far
as it goes but incomplete, Le Vavasseur is perhaps the most
practical for general purposes.
B. History
The development of the various rites, their spread and mutual
influence, the origin of each ceremony, etc., form a part of
church history whose importance is becoming more and more
realized. For practical purposes all a priest need know are the
present rules that affect the services he has to perform, as in
general the present laws of the Church are all we have to obey.
But just as the student of history needs to know the decrees of
former synods, even if abrogated since, as he studies the
history of earlier times and remote provinces of the Church,
because it is from these that he must build up his conception of
her continuous life, so the liturgical student will not be
content with knowing only what affects him now, but is prompted
to examine the past to inquire into the origin of our present
rite and study other rites too as expressions of the life of the
Church in other lands. The history of the liturgies that deeply
affect the life of Christians in many ways, that are the
foundation of many other objects of study (architecture, art,
music, etc.) is no inconsiderable element of church history. In
a sense this study is comparatively new and not yet sufficiently
organized though to some extent it has always accompanied the
practical study of liturgy. The great mediaeval liturgists were
not content with describing the rites of their own time. They
suggested historical reasons for the various ceremonies and
contrasted other practices with those of their own Churches.
Benedict XIV's treatise on the Mass discusses the origin of each
element of the Latin liturgy. This and other books of
seventeenth and eighteenth-century liturgiologists are still
standard works. So also in lectures and works on liturgy in our
first sense it has always been the custom to add historical
notes on the origin of the ceremonies and prayers.
But the interest in the history of liturgy for its own sake and
the systematic study of early documents is a comparatively new
thing. In this science England led the way and still takes the
foremost place. It followed the Oxford Movement as part of the
revived interest in the early Church among Anglicans. W. Palmer
(Origines liturgicae) and J. M. Neale in his various works are
among those who gave the first impulse to this movement. The
Catholic Daniel Rock ("Hierurgia" and "The Church of our
Fathers") further advanced it. It has now a large school of
followers. F.C. Brightman's edition of "Eastern Liturgies" is
the standard one used everywhere. The monumental editions of the
"Gelasian Sacramentary" by H.A. Wilson and the "Leonine
Sacramentary " by C. L. Feltoe, the various essays and
discussions by E. Bishop, C. Atchley, and many others keep up
the English standard. In France Dom Gueranger (L'annee
liturgique) and his school of Benedictines opened a new epoch.
Mgr Duchesne supplied a long-felt want with his "Origines du
suite chretien", Dom Cabral and Dom Leclereq ("Mon. eccl. lit.",
etc., especially the monumental "Dict. d'arch. chret. et de
liturgie") have advanced to the first place among modern
authorities on historical liturgy. From Germany we have the
works of H. Daniel (Codex lit. eccl. universae), Probst,
Thalhofer, Gihr, and a school of living students (Drews,
Rietschel, Baumstark, Buchwald, Rauschen). In Italy good work is
being done by Semeria, Bonaccorsi, and others. Nevertheless the
study of liturgy hardly yet takes the place it deserves in the
education of church students. Besides the practical instruction
that forms a part of pastoral theology, lectures on liturgical
history would form a valuable element of the course of church
history. As part of such a course other rites would be
considered and compared. There is a fund of deeper understanding
of the Roman Rite to be drawn from its comparison with others,
Gallican or Eastern. Such instruction in liturgiology should
include some notion of ecclesiology in general, the history and
comparison of church planning and architecture, of vestments and
church music. The root of all these things in different
countries is the liturgies they serve and adorn.
Dogmatic Value
The dogmatic and apologetic value of liturgical science is a
very important consideration to the theologian. It must, of
course, be used reasonably. No Church intends to commit herself
officially to every statement and implication contained in her
official books, any more than she is committed to everything
said by her Fathers. For instance, the Collect for St. Juliana
Falconieri (19 June) in the Roman Rite refers to the story of
her miraculous communion before her death, told at length in the
sixth lesson of her Office, but the truth of that story is not
part of the Catholic Faith. Liturgies give us arguments from
tradition even more valuable than those from the Fathers, for
these statements have been made by thousands of priests day
after day for centuries. A consensus of liturgies is, therefore,
both in space and time a greater witness of agreement than a
consensus of Fathers, for as a general principle it is obvious
that people in their prayers say only what they believe. This is
the meaning of the well known axiom: Lex orandi lex credendi.
The prayers for the dead, the passages in which God is asked to
accept this Sacrifice, the statements of the Real Presence in
the oldest liturgies are unimpeachable witnesses of the Faith of
the early Church as to these points. The Bull of Pius IX on the
Immaculate Conception ("Ineffabilis Deus", 8 Dec., 1854)
contains a classical example of this argument from liturgy.
Indeed there are few articles of faith that cannot be
established or at least confirmed from liturgies. The Byzantine
Office for St. Peter and St. Paul (29. June) contains plain
statements about Roman primacy. The study of liturgy from this
point of view is part of dogmatic theology. Of late years
especially dogmatic theologians have given much attention to it.
Christian Pesch, S.J., in his "Praelectiones theologiae
dogmaticae" (9 vols., Freiburg i. Br.) quotes the liturgical
texts for the theses as part of the argument from tradition.
There are then these three aspects under which liturgiology
should be considered by a Catholic theologian, as an element of
canon law, church history, and dogmatic theology. The history of
its study would take long to tell. There have been
liturgiologists through all the centuries of Christian theology.
Briefly the state of this science at various periods is this:
Liturgiologists in the Ante-Nicene period, such as Justin
Martyr, composed or wrote down descriptions of ceremonies
performed, but made no examination of the sources of rites. In
the fourth and fifth centuries the scientific study of the
subject began. St. Ambrose's "Liber de Mysteriis" (P. L., XVI,
405-26) the anonymous (pseudo-Ambrose) "De Sacramentis" (P. L.,
XVI, 435-82), various treatises by St. Jerome (e. g., "Contra
Vigilantium" in P. L., XXIII, 354-367) and St. Augustine, St.
Cyril of Jerusalem's "Catechetical Instructions" (P. L., XXXIII,
331-1154) and the famous "Peregrinatio Silvae" (in the "Corpus
script. eccl. Latin. of Vienna: "Itinera hierosolymitana",
35-101) represent in various degrees the beginning of an
examination of liturgical texts. From the sixth to the eighth
centuries we have valuable texts (the Sacramentaries and
Ordines) and a liturgical treatise of St, Isidore of Seville
("De eccl. officiis" in P. L., LXXXIII). The Carlovingian
revival of the eighth and ninth centuries began the long line of
medieval liturgiologists. Alcuin (P. L., C-CI), Amalarius of
Metz (P. L., XCIX, CV), Agobard (P. L., CIV), Florus of Lyons
(P. L., CXlX, 15-72), Rabanus Maurus (P. L., CVII-CXII), and
Walafrid Strabo (P. L., CXIV, 916--66) form at this time a
galaxy of liturgical scholars of the first importance. In the
eleventh century Berno of Constance ("Micrologus" in P. L., CLI,
974-1022), in the twelfth Rupert of Deutz ("De divinis officiis"
in P. L., CLXX, 9-334), Honorius of Autun ("Gemma animae" and
"De Sacramentis" in P. L., CLXXII), John Beleth ("Rationale div.
offic." in P. L., CCII, 9-166), and Beroldus of Milan (ed.
Magistretti, Milan, 1894) carry on the tradition. In the
thirteenth century see DURANDUS) is the most famous of all the
William Durandus of Mende ("Rationale div. medieval
liturgiologists. There is then a break till the sixteenth
century. The discussions of the Reformation period called
people's attention again to liturgies, either as defenses of the
old Faith or as sources for the compilation of reformed
services.
From this time editions of the old rites were made for students,
with commentaries. J. Clichtove ("Elucidatorium eccl.", Paris,
1516) and J. Cochlaeus ("Speculum ant. devotionis", Mainz, 1549)
were the first editors of this kind. Claude de Sainctes, Bishop
of Evreux, published a similar collection ("Liturgiae sive
missae ss. Patrum", Antwerp, 1562). Pamelius's " Liturgies.
latin." (Cologne, 157 1) is a valuable edition of Roman,
Milanese, and Mozarabic texts. Melchior Hittorp published a
collection of old commentaries on the liturgy ("De Cath. eccl.
div. offic. " Cologne, 1568) which was re-edited in Bigne's
"Bibl. vet. Patrum.", X (Paris, 1610). The seventeenth century
opened a great period. B. Gavanti ("Thesaurus sacr. rituum",
re-edited by Merati, Rome, 1736-8) and H. Menard, O.S.B.
("Sacramentarium Gregorianum" in P. L., LXXVIII) began a new
line of liturgiologists. J. Goar, O.P. ("Euchologion", Paris,
1647), and Leo Allatius in his various dissertations did great
things for the study of Eastern rites. The Oratorian J. Morin
("Comm. hist. de disciplina in admin. Sac. Poen." Paris 1651,
and "Comm. de sacris eccl. ordinationibus", Paris, 1655).
Cardinal John Bons ("Rerum lit. libri duo", Rome, 1671), Card.
Tommasi ("Codices sacramentorum", Rome, 1680; "Antiqui libri
missarum ", Rome, 1691), J. Mabillon, O.S.B. ("Musaeum Italicum"
Paris 1687-9), E. Martene, O.S.B. (" De ant. eccl. ritibus;
Antwerp, 1736-8), represent the highest point of liturgical
study. Dom Claude de Vert wrote a series of treatises on
liturgical matters. In the eighteenth century the most important
names are: Benedict XIV ("De SS. Sacrificio Missae", republished
at Mainz, 1879), E. Renaudot ("Lit. orient. collectio ", Paris,
1716), the four Assemani, Maronites ("Kalendaria eccl.
universae", Rome, 1755; "Codex lit. eccl. universae", Rome,
1749-66, etc.) Muratori ("Liturgia romana vetus", Venice, 1748).
So we come to the revival of the nineteenth century, Dom
Gueranger and the modern authors already mentioned.
ADRIAN FORTESCUE
BENEDICTINE RITE
The only important rite peculiar to the Benedictine Order is the
Benedictine Breviary (Breviarium Monasticum). St. Benedict
devotes thirteen chapters (viii-xx), of his rule to regulating
the canonical hours for his monks, and the Benedictine Breviary
is the outcome of this regulation. It is used not only by the
so-called Black Benedictines, but also by the Cistercians,
Olivetans, and all those orders that have the Rule of St.
Benedict as their basis. The Benedictines are not at liberty to
substitute the Roman for the Monastic Breviary; by using the
Roman Breviary they would not satisfy their obligation of saying
the Divine Office. Each congregation of Benedictines has its own
ecclesiastical calendar.
MICHAEL OTT
CARMELITE RITE
The rite in use among the Carmelites since about the middle of
the twelfth century is known by the name of the Rite of the Holy
Sepulchre, the Carmelite Rule, which was written about the year
1210, ordering the hermits of Mount Carmel to follow the
approved custom of the Church, which in this instance meant the
Patriarchal Church of Jerusalem: "Hi qui litteras noverunt et
legere psalmos, per singulas horas eos dicant qui ex
institutione sanctorum patrum et ecelesiae approbata
consuetudine ad horas singulas sunt deputati." This Rite of the
Holy Sepulchre belonged to the Gallican family of the Roman
Rite; it appears to have descended directly from the Parisian
Rite, but to have undergone some modifications pointing to other
sources. For, in the Sanctorale we find influences of Angers, in
the proses traces of meridional sources, while the lessons and
prayers on Holy Saturday are purely Roman. The fact is that most
of the clerics who accompanied the Crusaders were of French
nationality; some even belonged to the Chapter of Paris, as is
proved by documentary evidence. Local influence, too, played an
important part. The Temple itself, the Holy Sepulchre, the
vicinity of the Mount of Olives, of Bethany, of Bethlehem, gave
rise to magnificent ceremonies, connecting the principal events
of the ecclesiastical year with the very localities where the
various episodes of the work of Redemption has taken place. The
rite is known to us by means of some manuscripts one (Barberini
659 of A. D. 1160) in the Vatican library, another at Barletta,
described by Kohler (Revue de I'Orient Latin, VIII, 1900-01, pp.
383-500) and by him ascribed to about 1240.
The hermits on Mount Carmel were bound by rule only to assemble
once a day for the celebration of Mass, the Divine Office being
recited privately. Lay brothers who were able to read might
recite the Office, while others repeated the Lord's Prayer a
certain number of times, according to the length and solemnity
of the various offices. It may be presumed that on settling in
Europe (from about A. D. 1240) the Carmelites conformed to the
habit of the other mendicant orders with respect to the choral
recitation or chant of the Office, and there is documentary
evidence that on Mount Carmel itself the choral recitation was
in force at least in 1254. The General Chapter of 1259 passed a
number of regulations on liturgical matters, but, owing to the
loss of the acts, their nature is unfortunately not known.
Subsequent chapters very frequently dealt with the rite chiefly
adding new feasts, changing old established customs, or revising
rubrics. An Ordinal, belonging to the second half of the
thirteenth century, is preserved at Trinity College, Dublin,
while portions of an Epistolarium of about 1270 are at the
Maglia, becchiana at Florence (D6, 1787). The entire Ordinal was
rearranged and revised in 1312 by Master Sibert de Beka, and
rendered obligatory by the General Chapter, but it experienced
some difficulty in superseding the old one. Manuscripts of it
are preserved at Lambeth (London), Florence, and else where. It
remained in force until 1532, when a (committee was appointed
for its revision; their work was approved in 1539, but published
only in 1544 after the then General Nicholas Audet had
introduced some further changes. The, reform of the Roman
liturgical books under St. Pius V called for a corresponding
reform of the Carmelite Rite, which was taken in hand in 1580,
the Breviary appearing in 1584 and the Missal in 1587. At the
same time the Holy See withdrew the right hitherto exercised by
the chapters and the generals of altering the liturgy of the
order, and placed all such matters in the hands of the Sacred
Congregation of Rites. The publication of the Reformed Breviary
of 1584 caused the newly established Discaleed Carmelites to
abandon the ancient rite once for all and to adopt the Roman
Rite instead. Besides the various manuscripts of the Ordinal
already mentioned, we have examined a large number of manuscript
missals and breviaries preserved in public and private libraries
in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and other
countries. We have seen most of the early prints of the Missal
enumerated by Weale, as well as some not mentioned by him, and
the breviaries of 1480, 1490, 1504, 1516 (Horae), 1542, 1568,
1575, and 1579.
Roughly speaking, the ancient Carmelite Rite may be said to
stand about half way between the Carthusian and the Dominican
rites. It shows signs of great antiquity -- e.g. in the absence
of liturgical colours, in the sparing use of altar candles (one
at low Mass, none on the altar itself at high Mass but only
acolytes' torches, even these being extinguished during part of
the Mass, four torches and one candle in choir for Tenebrae);
incense, likewise, is used rarely and with noteworthy
restrictions; the Blessing at the end of the Mass is only
permitted where the custom of the country requires it; passing
before the tabernacle, the brethren are directed to make a
profound inclination, not a genuflexion. Many other features
might be quoted to show that the whole rite points to a period
of transition. Already according to the earliest Ordinal
Communion is given under one species, the days of general
Communion being seven, later on ten or twelve a year with leave
for more frequent Communion under certain conditions. Extreme
Unction was administered on the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth,
both hands (the palms, with no distinction between priests and
others) and the feet superius. The Ordinal of 1312 on the
contrary orders the hands to be anointed exterius, but also
without distinction for the priests; it moreover adds another
anointing on the breast (super pectus: per ardorem libidinis).
In the Mass there are some peculiarities. the altar remains
covered until the priest and ministers are ready to begin, when
the acolytes then roll back the cover; likewise before the end
of the Mass they cover the altar again. On great feasts the
Introit is said three times, i.e. it is repeated both before and
after the Gloria Patri; besides the Epistle and Gospel there is
a lesson or prophecy to be recited by an acolyte. At the Lavabo
the priest leaves the altar for the piscina where he says that
psalm, or else Veni Creator Spiritus or Deus misereatur.
Likewise after the first ablution he goes to the piscina to wash
his fingers. During the Canon of the Mass the deacon moves a fan
to keep the flies away, a custom still in use in Sicily and
elsewhere. At the word fregit in the form of consecration, the
priest, according to the Ordinal of 1312 and later rubrics,
makes a movement as if breaking the host. Great care is taken
that the smoke of the thurible and of the torches do not
interfere with the clear vision of the host when lifted up for
the adoration of the faithful; the chalice, however, is only
slightly elevated. The celebrating priest does not genuflect but
bows reverently. After the Pater Noster the choir sings the
psalm Deus venerunt genies for the restoration of the Holy Land.
The prayers for communion are identical with those of the Sarum
Rite and other similar uses, viz. domine sancte pater, Domine
Jesu Christe (as in the Roman Rite), and Salve salus mundi. The
Domine non sum dignus was introduced only in 1568. The Mass
ended with Dominus vobiscum, Ite missa est (or its equivalent)
and Placeat. The chapter of 1324 ordered the Salve regina to be
said at the end of each canonical hour as well as at the end of
the Mass. The Last Gospel, which in both ordinals serves for the
priest's thanksgiving, appears in the Missal of 1490 as an
integral part of the Mass. On Sundays and feasts there was,
besides the festival Mass after Terce or Sext, an early Mass
(matutina) without solemnities, corresponding to the
commemorations of the Office. From Easter till Advent the Sunday
Mass was therefore celebrated early in the morning, the high
Mass being that of the Resurrection of our Lord; similarly on
these Sundays the ninth lesson with its responsory was taken
from one of the Easter days; these customs had been introduced
soon after the conquest of the Holy Land. A solemn commemoration
of the Resurrection was held on the last Sunday before Advent;
in all other respects the Carmelite Liturgy reflects more
especially the devotion of the order towards the Blessed Virgin.
The Divine Office also presents some noteworthy features. The
first Vespers of certain feasts and the Vespers during Lent have
a responsory usually taken from Matins. Compline has various
hymns according to the season, and also special antiphons for
the Canticle. The lessons at Matins follow a somewhat different
plan from those of the Roman Office. The singing of the
genealogies of Christ after Matins on Christmas and the Epiphany
gave rise to beautiful ceremonies. After Tenebrae in Holy Week
(sung at midnight) we notice the chant of the Tropi; all the
Holy Week services present interesting archaic features. Other
points to be mentioned are the antiphons Pro fidei meritis etc.
on the Sundays from Trinity to Advent and the verses after the
psalms on Trinity, the feasts of St. Paul, and St. Laurence. The
hymns are those of the Roman Office; the proses appear to be a
uniform collection which remained practically unchanged from the
thirteenth century to 1544, when all but four or five were
abolished. The Ordinal prescribes only four processions in the
course of the year, viz. on Candlemas, Palm Sunday, the
Ascension, and the Assumption.
The calendar of saints, in the two oldest recensions of the
Ordinal, exhibits some feasts proper to the Holy Land, namely
some of the early bishops of Jerusalem, the Patriarchs Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, and Lazarus. The only special features were
the feast of St. Anne, probably due to the fact that the
Carmelites occupied for a short time a convent dedicated to her
in Jerusalem (vacated by Benedictine nuns at the capture of that
city in 1187), and the octave of the Nativity of Our Lady, which
also was proper to the order. In the works mentioned below we
have given the list of feasts added in the course of three
centuries, and shall here speak only of a few. The Chapter of
1306 introduced those of St. Louis, Barbara, Corpus Christi, and
the Conception of Our Lady (in Conceptione seu potius
veneratione sanctificationis B. V.); the Corpus Christi
procession, however, dates only from the end of the fifteenth
century. In 1312 the second part of the Confiteor, which till
then had been very short, was introduced. Daily commemorations
of St. Anne and Sts. Albert and Angelus date respectively from
the beginning and the end of the fifteenth century, but were
transferred in 1503 from the canonical Office to the Little
Office of Our Lady. The feast of the "Three Maries" dates from
1342, those of the Visitation, of Our Lady ad nives, and the
Presentation from 1391. Feasts of the order were first
introduced towards the end of the fourteenth century -- viz. the
Commemoration (Scapular Feast) of 16 July appears first about
1386; St. Eliseus, prophet and St. Cyril of Constantinople in
1399; St. Albert in 1411; St. Angelus in 1456. Owing to the
printing of the first Breviary of the order at Brussels in 1480,
a number of territorial feasts were introduced into the order,
such as St. Joseph, the Ten Thousand Martyrs, the Division of
the Apostles. The raptus of St. Elias (17 June) is first to be
found in the second half of the fifteenth century in England and
Germany; the feast of the Prophet (20 July) dates at the
earliest from 1551. Some general chapters, especially those of
1478 and 1564, added whole lists of saints, partly of real or
supposed saints of the order, partly of martyrs whose bodies
were preserved in various churches belonging to the Carmelites,
particularly that of San Martino ai Monti in Rome. The revision
of 1584 reduced the Sanctorale to the smallest possible
dimensions, but many feasts then suppressed were afterwards
reintroduced.
A word must be added about the singing. The Ordinal of 1312
allows fauxbourdon, at least on solemn occasions; organs and
organists are mentioned with ever-increasing frequency from the
first years of the fifteenth century, the earliest notice being
that of Mathias Johannis de Lucca, who in 1410 was elected
organist at Florence; the organ itself was a gift of Johannes
Dominici Bonnani, surnamed Clerichinus, who died at an advanced
age on 24 Oct., 1416.
BENEDICT ZIMMERMAN
CISTERCIAN RITE
This rite is to be found in the liturgical books of the order.
The collection, composed of fifteen books, was made by the
General Chapter of Citeaux, most probably in 1134; they are now
included in the Missal, Breviary, Ritual, and calendar, or
Martyrology. When Pius V ordered the entire Church to conform to
the Roman Missal and Breviary, he exempted the Cistercians from
this law, because their rite had been more than 400 years in
existence. Under Claude Vaussin, General of the Cistercians (in
the middle of the seventeenth century), several reforms were
made in the liturgical books of the order, and were approved by
Alexander Vll, Clement IX, and Clement XIII. These approbations
were confirmed by Pius IX on 7 Feb., 1871, for the Cistercians
of the Common as well as for those of the Strict Observance. The
Breviary is quite different from the Roman, as it follows
exactly the prescriptions of the Rule of St. Benedict, with a
very few minor additions. St. Benedict wished the entire Psalter
recited each week; twelve psalms are to be said at Matins when
there are but two Nocturns; when there is a third Nocturn, it is
to be composed of three divisions of a canticle, there being in
this latter case always twelve lessons. Three psalms or
divisions of psalms are appointed for Prime, the Little Hours,
and Compline (in this latter hour the "Nunc dimittis" is never
said), and always four psalms for Vespers. Many minor divisions
and directions are given in St. Benedict's Rule.
In the old missal before the reform of Claude Vaussin, there
were wide divergences between the Cistercian and Roman rites.
The psalm "Judica" was not said, but in its stead was recited
the "Veni Creator"; the "Indulgentiam" was followed by the
"Pater" and "Ave", and the "Oramus te Domine" was omitted in
kissing the altar. After the "Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum",
the "Agnus Dei" was said thrice, and was followed immediately by
"Haec sacrosancta commixtio corporis", said by the priest while
placing the small fragment of the Sacred Host in the chalice;
then the "Domine Jesu Christe, Fili Dei Vivi" was said, but the
"Corpus Tuum" and "Quod ore sumpsimus" were omitted. The priest
said the "Placeat" as now, and then "Meritis et precibus istorum
et onmium sanctorum. Suorum misereatur nostri Omnipotens
Dominus. Amen", while kissing the altar; with the sign of the
Cross the Mass was ended. Outside of some minor exceptions in
the wording and conclusions of various prayers, the other parts
of the Mass were the same as in the Roman Rite. Also in some
Masses of the year the ordo was different; for instance, on Palm
Sunday the Passion was only said at the high Mass, at the other
Masses a special gospel only being said. However, since the time
of Claude Vaussin the differences from the Roman Mass are
insignificant.
In the calendar there are relatively few feasts of saints or
other modern feasts, as none were introduced except those
especially prescribed by Rome for the Cistercian Order; this was
done in order to adhere as closely as possible to the spirit of
St. Benedict in prescribing the weekly recitation of the
Psalter. The divisions of the feasts are: major or minor feast
of sermon; major or minor feast of two Masses; feast of twelve
lessons and Mass; feast of three lessons and Mass; feast of
commemoration and Mass; then merely a commemoration; and finally
the feria.
The differences in the ritual are very small. As regards the
last sacraments, Extreme Unction is given before the Holy
Viaticum, and in Extreme Unction the word "Peccasti" is used
instead of the "Deliquisti" in the Roman Ritual. In the
Sacrament of Penance a shorter form of absolution may be used in
ordinary confessions.
EDMOND M. OBRECHT
DOMINICAN RITE
A name denoting the distinctive ceremonies embodied in the
privileged liturgical books of the Order of Preachers.
(a) Origin and development
The question of a special unified rite for the order received no
official attention in the time of St. Dominic, each province
sharing in the general liturgical diversities prevalent
throughout the Church at the time of the order's confirmation
(1216). Hence, each province and often each convent had certain
peculiarities in the text and in the ceremonies of the Holy
Sacrifice and the recitation of the Office. The successors of
St. Dominic were quick to recognize the impracticability of such
conditions and soon busied themselves in an effort to eliminate
the embarrassing distinctions. They maintained that the safety
of a basic principle of community life unity of prayer and
worship-was endangered by this conformity with different
diocesan conditions. This belief was impressed upon them more
forcibly by the confusion that these liturgical diversities
occasioned at the general chapters of the order where brothers
from every province were assembled.
The first indication of an effort to regulate liturgical
conditions was manifested by Jordan of Saxony, the successor of
St. Dominic. In the Constitutions (1228) ascribed to him are
found several rubrics for the recitation of the Office. These
insist more on the attention with which the Office should be
said than on the qualifications of the liturgical books.
However, it is said that Jordan took some steps in the latter
direction and compiled one Office for universal use. Though this
is doubtful, it is certain that his efforts were of little
practical value, for the Chapters of Bologna (1240) and Paris
(1241) allowed each convent to conform with the local rites. The
first systematic attempt at reform was made under the direction
of John the Teuton, the fourth master general of the order. At
his suggestion the Chapter of Bologna (1244) asked the delegates
to bring to the next chapter (Cologne, 1245) their special
rubrics for the recitation of the Office, their Missals,
Graduals, and Antiphonaries, "pro concordando officio". To bring
some kind of order out of chaos a commission was appointed
consisting of four members, one each from the Provinces of
France, England, Lombardy, and Germany, to carry out the
revision at Angers. They brought the result of their labours to
the Chapter of Paris (1246), which approved the compilation and
ordered its exclusive use by the whole Order. This same chapter
approved the "Lectionary" which had been entrusted to Humbert of
Romains for revision. The work of the commission was again
approved by the Chapters of Montepulciano (1247) and Paris
(1248).
But dissatisfaction with the work of the commission was felt on
all sides, especially with their interpretation of the rubrics.
They had been hurried in their work, and had left too much
latitude for local customs. The question was reopened and the
Chapter of London (1250) asked the commission to reassemble at
Metz and revise their work in the light of the criticisms that
had been made; the result of this revision was approved at the
Chapters of Metz (1251) and Bologna (1252) and its use made
obligatory for the whole order. It was also ordained that one
copy of the liturgical books should be placed at Paris and one
at Bologna, from which the books for the other convents should
be faithfully copied. However, it was recognized that these
books were not entirely perfect, and that there was room for
further revision. Though this work was done under the direction
of John the Teuton, the brunt of the revision fell to the lot of
Humbert of Romains, then provincial of the Paris Province.
Humbert was elected Master General of the Chapter of Buda (1254)
and was asked to direct his attention to the question of the
order's liturgical books. He subjected each of them to a most
thorough revision, and after two years submitted his work to the
Chapter of Paris (1256). This and several subsequent chapters
endorsed the work, effected legislation guarding against
corruption, constitutionally recognized the authorship of
Humbert, and thus once and for all settled a common rite for the
Order of Preachers throughout the world.
(b) Preservation
Clement IV, through the general, John of Vercelli, issued a Bull
in 1267 in which he lauded the ability and zeal of Humbert and
forbade the making of any changes without the proper
authorization. Subsequent papal regulation went much further
towards preserving the integrity of the rite. Innocent XI and
Clement XII prohibited the printing of the books without the
permission of the master general and also ordained that no
member of the order should presume to use in his fulfilment of
the choral obligation any book not bearing the seal of the
general and a reprint of the pontifical Decrees. Another force
preservative of the special Dominican Rite was the Decree of
Pius V (1570), imposing a common rite on the universal Church
but excepting those rites which had been approved for two
hundred years. This exception gave to the Order of Friars
Preachers the privilege of maintaining its old rite, a privilege
which the chapters of the order sanctioned and which the members
of the order gratefully accepted. It must not be thought that
the rite has come down through the ages absolutely without
change. Some slight corruptions crept in despite the rigid
legislation to the contrary. Then new feasts have been added
with the permission of the Roman Pontiffs and many new editions
of the liturgical books have been printed. Changes in the text,
when they have been made, have always been effected with the
idea of eliminating arbitrary mutilations and restoring the
books to a perfect conformity with the old exemplars at Paris
and Bologna. Such were the reforms of the Chapters of Salamanca
(1551), Rome (1777), and Ghent (1871). Several times movements
have been started with the idea of conforming with the Roman
Rite; but these have always been defeated, and the order still
stands in possession of the rite conceded to it by Pope Clement
in 1267.
(c) Sources of the rite
To determine the sources of the Dominican Rite is to come face
to face with the haze and uncertainty that seems to shroud most
liturgical history. The thirteenth century knew no unified Roman
Rite. While the basis of the usages of north-western Europe was
a Gallicanized-Gregorian Sacramentary sent by Adrian IV to
Charlemagne, each little locality had its own peculiar
distinctions. At the time of the unification of the Dominican
Rite most of the convents of the order were embraced within the
territory in which the old Gallican Rite had once obtained and
in which the Gallico-Roman Rite then prevailed. Jordan of
Saxony, the pioneer in liturgical reform within the a order,
greatly admired the Rite of the Church Paris and frequently
assisted at the recitations of the Office at Notre-Dame. Humbert
of Romains, who played so important a part in the work of
unification, was the provincial of the French Province. These
facts justify the opinion that the basis of the Dominican Rite
was the typical Gallican Rite of the thirteenth century. But
documentary evidence that the rite was adapted from any one
locality is lacking. The chronicles of the order state merely
that the rite is neither the pure Roman nor the pure Gallican,
but based on the Roman usage of the thirteenth century, with
additions from the Rites of Paris and other places in which the
order existed. Just from where these additions were obtained and
exactly what they were cannot be determined, except in a general
way, from an examination of each distinctive feature.
Two points must be emphasized here: (1) the Dominican Rite is
not an arbitrary elaboration of the Roman Rite made against the
spirit of the Church or to give the order an air of
exclusiveness, nor can it be said to be more gallicanized then
any use of the Gallico-Roman Rite of that period. It was an
honest and sincere attempt to harmonize and simplify the widely
divergent usages of the early half of the thirteenth century.
(2) The Dominican Rite, formulated by Humbert, saw no radical
development after its confirmation by Clement IV. When Pius V
made his reform, the Dominican Rite had been fixed and stable
for over three hundred years, while a constant liturgical change
had been taking place in other communities. Furthermore the
comparative simplicity of the Dominican Rite, as manifested in
the different liturgical books, gives evidence of its antiquity.
(d) Liturgical books
The rite compiled by Humbert contained fourteen books: (1) the
Ordinary, which was a sort of an index to the Divine Office, the
Psalms, Lessons, Antiphons, and Chapters being indicated by
their first words. (2) The Martyrology, an amplified calendar of
martyrs and other saints. (3) The Collectarium, a book for the
use of the hebdomidarian, which contained the texts and the
notes for the prayers, chapters, and blessings. (4) The
Processional, containing the hymns (text and music) for the
processions. (5) The Psalterium, containing merely the Psalter.
(6) The Lectionary, which contained the Sunday homilies, the
lessons from Sacred Scripture and the lives of the saints. (7)
The Antiphonary, giving the text and music for the parts of the
Office sung outside of the Mass. (8) The Gradual, which
contained the words and the music for the parts of the Mass sung
by the choir. (9) The Conventual Missal, for the celebration of
solemn Mass. (10) The Epistolary, containing the Epistles for
the Mass and the Office. (11) The Book of Gospels. (12) The
Pulpitary, which contained the musical notation for the Gloria
Patri, the Invitatory, Litanies, Tracts, and the Alleluia. (13)
The Missal for a private Mass. (14) The Breviary, a compilation
from all the books used in the choral recitation of the Office,
very much reduced in size for the convenience of travellers.
By a process of elimination and synthesis undergone so by the
books of the Roman Rite many of the books of Humbert have become
superfluous while several others have been formed. These add
nothing to the original text, but merely provide for the
Addition of feasts and the more convenient recitation of the
office. The collection of the liturgical books now contains: (1)
Martyrology; (2) Collectarium; (3) Processional; (4)
Antiphonary; (5) Gradual; (6) Missal for the conventual Mass;
(7) Missal for the private Mass; (8) Breviary; (9) Vesperal;
(10) Horae Diurnae; (11) Ceremonial. The contents of these books
follow closely the books of the same name issued by Humbert and
which have just been described. The new ones are: (1) the Horae
Diurnae (2) the Vesperal (with notes), adaptations from the
Breviary and the Antiphonary respectively (3) the Collectarium,
which is a compilation from all the rubrics scattered throughout
the other books. With the exception of the Breviary, these books
are similar in arrangment to the correspondingly named books of
the Roman Rite. The Dominican Breviary is divided into two
parts: Part I, Advent to Trinity; Part II, Trinity to Advent.
(e) Distinctive marks of the Dominican Rite
Only the most striking differences between the Dominican Rite
and the Roman need be mentioned here. The most important is in
the manner of celebrating a low Mass. The celebrant in the
Dominican Rite wears the amice over his head until the beginning
of Mass, and prepares the chalice as soon as he reaches the
altar. The Psalm "Judica me Deus" is not said and the Confiteor,
much shorter than the Roman, contains the name of St. Dominic.
The Gloria and the Credo are begun at the centre of the altar
and finished at the Missal. At the Offertory there is a
simultaneous oblation of the Host and the chalice and only one
prayer, the "Suscipe Sancta Trinitas". The Canon of the Mass is
the same as the Canon of the Roman Rite, but after it are
several noticeable differences. The Dominican celebrant says the
"Agnus Dei" immediately after the "Pax Domini" and then recites
three prayers "Haec sacrosancta commixtio" "Domine Jesu
Christe", and "Corpus et sanguis" Then follows the Communion,
the priest receiving the Host from his left hand. No prayers are
said at the consumption of the Precious Blood, the first prayer
after the "Corpus et Sanguis" being the Communion. These are the
most noticeable differences in the celebration of a low Mass. In
a solemn Mass the chalice is prepared just after the celebrant
has read the Gospel, seated at the Epistle side of the
sanctuary. The chalice is brought from the altar to the place
where the celebrant is seated by the sub-deacon, who pours the
wine and water into it and replaces it on the altar.
The Dominican Breviary differs but slightly from the Roman. The
Offices celebrated are of seven classes:--of the season (de
tempore), of saints (de sanctis), of vigils, of octaves, votive
Offices, Office of the Blessed Virgin, and Office of the Dead.
In point of dignity the feasts are classified as "totum duplex",
"duplex" "simplex" "of three lessons", and "of a memory". The
ordinary "totum duplex" feast is equivalent to the Roman greater
double. A "totum duplex" with an ordinary octave (a simple or a
solemn octave) is equal to the second-class double of the Roman
Rite, and a "totum duplex" with a most solemn octave is like the
Roman first-class double. A "duplex" feast is equivalent to the
lesser double and the "simplex" to the semi-double. There is no
difference in the ordering of the canonical hours, except that
all during Paschal time the Dominican Matins provide for only
three psalms and three lessons instead of the customary nine
psalms and nine lessons. The Office of the Blessed Virgin must
be said on all days on which feasts of the rank of duplex or
"totum duplex" are not celebrated. The Gradual psalms must be
said on all Saturdays on which is said the votive Office of the
Blessed Virgin. The Office of the Dead must be said once a week
except during the week following Easter and the week following
Pentecost. Other minor points of difference are the manner of
making the commemorations, the text of the hymns, the Antiphons,
the lessons of the common Offices and the insertions of special
feasts of the order. There is no great distinction between the
musical notation of the Dominican Gradual, Vesperal, and
Antiphonary and the corresponding books of the new Vatican
edition. The Dominican chant has been faithfully copied from the
MSS. of the thirteenth century, which were in turn derived
indirectly from the Gregorian Sacramentary. One is not surprised
therefore at the remarkable similarity between the chant of the
two rites. For a more detailed study of the Dominican Rite
reference may be had to the order's liturgical books.
IGNATIUS SMITH.
FRANCISCAN RITE
The Franciscans, unlike the Dominicans, Carmelites, and other
orders, have never had a peculiar rite properly so called, but,
conformably to the mind of St. Francis of Assisi, have always
followed the Roman Rite for the celebration of Mass. However,
the Friars Minor and the Capuchins wear the amice, instead of
the biretta, over the head, and are accustomed to say Mass with
their feet uncovered, save only by sandals. They also enjoy
certain privileges in regard to the time and place of
celebrating Mass, and the Missale Romano-Seraphicum contains
many proper Masses not found in the Roman Missal. These are
mostly feasts of Franciscan saints and blessed, which are not
celebrated throughout the Church, or other feasts having a
peculiar connexion with the order, e.g. the Feast of the
Mysteries of the Way of the Cross (Friday before Septuagesima),
and that of the Seven Joys of the Blessed Virgin (First Sunday
after the octave of the Assumption). The same is true in regard
to the Breviarium Romano-Seraphicum, and Martyrologium
Romano-Seraphicum. The Franciscans exercised great influence in
the origin and evolution of the Breviary, and on the revision of
the Rubrics of the Mass. They have also their own calendar, or
ordo. This calendar may be used not only in the churches of the
First Order, but also in the churches and chapels of the Second
Order, and Third Order Regular (if aggregated to the First
Order) and Secular, as well as those religious institutes which
have had some connexion with the parent body. It may also be
used by secular priests or clerics who axe members of the Third
Order. The order has also its own ritual and ceremonial for its
receptions, professions, etc.
FERDINAND HECKMANN
FRIARS MINOR CAPUCHIN RITE
The Friars Minor Capuchin use the Roman Rite, except that in the
Confiteor the name of their founder, St. Francis is added after
the names of the Apostles, and in the suffrages they make
commemorations of St. Francis and all saints of their order. The
use of incense in the conventual mass on certain solemnities,
even though the Mass is said and not sung, is another liturgical
custom (recently sanctioned by the Holy See) peculiar to their
order. Generally speaking, the Capuchins do not have sung Masses
except in parochial churches, and except in these churches they
may not have organs without the minister general's permission.
By a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 May, 1890,
the minister general, when celebrating Mass at the time of the
canonical visitation and on solemnities, has the privileges of a
domestic prelate of His Holiness. In regard to the Divine
Office, the Capuchins do not sing it according to note but
recite it in monotone. In the larger communities they generally
recite Matins and Lauds at midnight, except on the three last
days of Holy Week, when Tenebrae is chanted on the preceding
evening, and during the octaves of Corpus Christi and the
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, when matins
are recited also on the preceding evening with the Blessed
Sacrament exposed. Every day after Compline they add,
extra-liturgically, commemorations of the Immaculate Conception,
St. Francis, and St. Anthony of Padua. On the feast of St.
Francis after second Vespers they observe the service called the
"Transitus" of St. Francis, and on all Saturdays, except feasts
of first and second class and certain privileged feriae and
octaves, all Masses said in their churches are votive in honour
of the Immaculate Conception, excepting only the conventual
mass. They follow the universal calendar, with the addition of
feasts proper to their order. These additional feasts include
all canonized saints of the whole Franciscan Order, all beati of
the Capuchin Reform and the more notable beati of the whole
order; and every year the 5th of October is observed as a
commemoration of the departed members of the order in the same
way as the 2nd of November is observed in the universal Church.
Owing to the great number of feasts thus observed, the Capuchins
have the privilege of transferring the greater feasts, when
necessary, to days marked semi-double. According to the ancient
Constitutions of the Order, the Capuchins were not allowed to
use vestments of rich texture, not even of silk, but by Decree
of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 December, 1888, they
must now conform to the general laws of the Church in this
matter. They are, however, still obliged to maintain severe
simplicity in their churches, especially when nonparochial.
FATHER CUTHBERT
PREMONSTRATENSIAN RITE
The Norbertine rite differs from the Roman in the celebration of
the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the Divine Office, and in the
administration of the Sacrament of Penance.
(1) Sacrifice of the Mass
The Missal is proper to the order and is not arranged like the
Roman Missal. The canon is identical, with the exception of a
slight variation as to the time of making the sign of the cross
with the paten at the "Libera nos". The music for the Prefaces
etc. differs, though not considerably, from that of the Roman
Missal. Two alleluias are said after the "Ite missa est" for a
week after Easter; for the whole of the remaining Paschal time
one alleluia is said. The rite for the celebration of feasts
gives the following grades: three classes of triples, two of
doubles, celebre, nine lessons, three lessons. No feasts are
celebrated during privileged octaves. There are so many feasts
lower than double that usually no privilege is needed for votive
Masses. The rubrics regulating the various feasts of the year
are given in the "Ordinarius Sen. liber caeremomarum canonici
ordinis Praemonstratensis". Rubrics for the special liturgical
functions are found in the Missal, the Breviary, the Diurnal,
the Processional, the Gradual, and the Antiphonary.
(2) Divine Office
The Breviary differs from the Roman Breviary in its calendar,
the manner of reciting it, arrangement of matter. Some saints on
the Roman calendar are omitted. The feasts peculiar to the
Norbertines are: St. Godfried, C., 16 Jan.; St. Evermodus, B.
C., 17 Feb.; Bl. Frederick, Abbot, 3 Mar.; St. Ludolph, B. M.,
29 Mar.; Bl. Herman Joseph, C., 7 Apr.; St. Isfrid, B. C.,' 15
June; Sts. Adrian and James, MM., 9 July; Bl. Hrosnata, 19 July,
19; Bl. Gertrude, V., 13 Aug.; Bl. Bronislava, V., 30 Aug.; St.
Gilbert, Abbot, 24 Oct.; St. Siardus, Abbot, 17 Nov. The feast
of St. Norbert, founder of the order, which falls on 6 June in
the Roman calendar, is permanently transferred to 11 July, so
that its solemn rite may not be interfered with by the feasts of
Pentecost and Corpus Christi. Other feasts are the Triumph of
St. Norbert over the sacramentarian heresy of Tanchelin, on the
third Sunday after Pentecost, and the Translation of St. Norbert
commemorating the translation of his body from Magdeburg to
Prague, on the fourth Sunday after Easter. Besides the daily
recitation of the canonical hours the Norbertines are obliged to
say the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, except on triple
feasts and during octaves of the first class. In choir this is
said immediately after the Divine Office.
(3) Administration of the Sacrament of Penance
The form of absolution is not altogether in harmony with that of
the Roman Ritual. The following is the Norbertine formula:
"Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat, et ego auctoritate
ipsius, mihi licet indignissimo concessa, absolvo te in primis,
a vinculo excommunicationis ... in quantum possum et indiges",
etc.
The liturgical books of the Norbertines were reprinted by order
of the general chapter held at Premontre, in 1738, and presided
over by Claude H. Lucas, abbot-general. A new edition of the
Missal and the Breviary was issued after the General Chapter of
Prague, in 1890. In 1902 a committee was appointed to revise the
Gradual, Antiphonary, etc. This committee received much
encouragement in its work by the Motu Proprio of Pius X on
church music. The General Chapter of Tepl, Austria, in 1908,
decided to edit the musical books of the order as prepared, in
accordance with ancient MSS. by this committee
G. RYBROOK
SERVITE RITE
The Order of Servites (see SERVANTS OF MARY) cannot be said to
possess a separate or exclusive rite similar to the Dominicans
and others, but follows the Roman Ritual, as provided in its
constitutions, with very slight variations. Devotion towards the
Mother of Sorrows being the principal distinctive characteristic
of the order, there are special prayers and indulgences
attaching to the solemn celebration of the five major Marian
feasts, namely, the Annunciation, Visitation, Assumption,
Presentation, and Nativity of our Blessed Lady.
The feast of the Seven Dolours of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
celebrated always on the Third Sunday of September, has a
privileged octave and is enriched with a plenary indulgence ad
instar Portiunculoe; that is, as often as a visit is made to a
church of the order. In common with all friars the Servite
priests wear an amice on the head instead of a biretta while
proceeding to and from the altar. The Mass is begun with the
first part of the Angelical Salutation, and in the Confiteor the
words Septem beatis patribus nostris are inserted. At the
conclusion of Mass the Salve Regina and the oration Omnipotens
sempiterne Deus are recited. In the recitation of the Divine
Office each canonical hour is begun with the Ave Maria down to
the words ventris tui, Jesus. The custom of reciting daily,
immediately before Vespers, a special prayer called Vigilia,
composed of the three psalms and three antiphons of the first
nocturn of the Office of the Blessed Virgin, followed by three
lessons and responses, comes down from the thirteenth century,
when they were offered in thanksgiving for a special favour
bestowed upon the order by Pope Alexander IV (13 May, 1259). The
Salve Regina is daily chanted in choir whether or not it is the
antiphon proper to the season.
LITURGICAL SCIENCE.--RENAUDOT, Liturgiarum orientalium collectio
(Frankfurt, 1847); MARTENE Le antiquis ecclesioe ritibus
(Antwerp and Milan, 1736-8); ASSEMANI, Codex liturgicus
ecclesioe universoe (Rome, 1749-66); DANIEL, Codex liturgicus
ecclesioe universoe (Leipzig, 1847); DENZIGER, Ritus Orientalium
(Wurzburg, 1863); NILLES, Kalendarium manuals (Innsbruck, 1896);
HAMMOND, Liturgies, Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1878);
BRIGHTMAN, Eastern Liturgies (Oxford, 1896); CABROL,
Introduction aux etudes liturgiques (Paris, 1907); RIETSCHEL,
Lehrbuch der Liturgik (Berlin, 1900); CLEMEN, Quellenbuch zur
praktischen Theologie, 1: Liturgik (Giessen, 1910); The
Prayer-books of Edward VI and Elizabeth are reprinted in the
Ancient and Modern Library of Theological Literature (London);
PROCTOR AND FRERE, A New History of the Book of Common Prayer
(London, 1908); MAUDE, A History of the Book of Common Prayer
(London, 1899).
CARMELITE RITE.--ZIMMERMAN, Le ceremonial de Maitre Sibert de
Beka in Chroniques du Carmel Jambes-lez-Namur, 1903-5); IDEM,
Ordinaire de l'Ordre de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel (Paris, 1910),
being the thirteenth volume of Bibliotheque liturgique; WESSELS,
Ritus Ordinis in Analecta Ordinis Carmelitarum (Rome, 1909);
WEALE, Bibliographia liturgica (London, 1886). The oldest
Ordinal, now in Dublin but of English origin, written after 1262
and before the publication of the Constitution of Boniface VIII,
"Gloriosus Deus," C. Gloriosus, de Reliquiis, in Sexto, has not
yet been printed.
CISTERCIAN RITE.-- Missale Cisterciense, MS. of the latter part
of the fourteenth century; Mis. Cist. (Strasburg, 1486); Mis.
Cist. (Paris, 1516, 1545, 1584); Regula Ssmi Patris Benedicti;
Breviarium Cist. cum Bulla Pii Papoe IX die 7 Feb., 1871; BONA,
Op. omnia (Antwerp, 1677); GUIGNART, Mon. primitifs de la regle
cist. (Dijon, 1878); Rubriques du breviaire cist., by a
religious of La Grande Trappe (1882); TRILHE, Memoire sur le
projet de ceremonial cist. (Toulouse, 1900); IDEM, Man.
Coeremoniarum juxta usum S.O. Cist. (Westmalle, 1908).
DOMINICAN RITE.--MORTIER, Hist. des mattres generaux de l'Ordre
des Freres Precheurs, I (Paris, 1903), 174, 309-312, 579 sq.;
CASSITTO, Liturgia Dominicana (Naples, 1804); MASETTI, Mon. et
Antiq. vet. discipl. Ord. Praed. (Rome, 1864); DANZAS, Etudes
sur too temps prim. de l'ordre do S. Dominique (Paris, 1884);
Acta Capitulorum Ord. Proed., ed. REICHERT (Rome, 1898-1904);
Litt. Encyc. Magist. Gener. O. P., ed. REICHERT (Rome, 1900);
TURON, Hist. des hommes ill. do I'Ordre de St. Dominique, 1,
341; Bullarium O. P., passim.
FRANCISCAN RITE.-- Coerem. Romano-Seraph. (Quaracchi, 1908);
Rit. Romano-Seraph. (Quaracchi, 1910); Promptuarium Seraph.
Quaracchi, 1910).
CAPUCHIN RITE.-- Ceremoniale Ord. Cap.; Analecta Ord. Cap.;
Constit. ord. (Rome).
P.J. GRIFFIN
Rites in the United States
Rites in the United States
Since immigration from the eastern portion of Europe and from
Asia and Africa set in with such volume, the peoples who (both
in union with and outside the unity of the Church) follow the
various Eastern rites arrived in the United States in large
numbers, bringing with them their priests and their forms of
worship. As they grew in number and financial strength, they
erected churches in the various cities and towns throughout the
country. Rome used to be considered the city where the various
rites of the Church throughout the world could be seen grouped
together, but in the United States they may be observed to a
greater advantage than even in Rome. In Rome the various rites
are kept alive for the purpose of educating the various national
clergy who study there, and for demonstrating the unity of the
Church, but there is no body of laymen who follow those rites;
in the United States, on the contrary, it is the number and
pressure of the laity which have caused the establishment and
support of the churches of the various rites. There is
consequently no better field for studying the various rites of
the Church than in the chief cities of the United States, and
such study has the advantage to the exact observer of affording
an opportunity of comparing the dissident churches of those
rites with those which belong to Catholic unity. The chief rites
which have established themselves in America are these: (1)
Armenian, (2) Greek or Byzantine, and (3) Syro-Maronite. There
are also a handful of adherents of the Coptic, Syrian, and
Chaldean rites, which will also be noticed, and there are
occasionally priests of the various Latin rites.
I. THE ARMENIAN RITE
This rite alone, of all the rites in the Church, is confined to
one people, one language, and one alphabet. It is, if anything,
more exclusive than Judaism of old. Other rites are more widely
extended in every way: the Roman Rite is spread throughout
Latin, Teutonic, and Slavic peoples, and it even has two
languages, the Latin and the Ancient Slavonic, and two
alphabets, the Roman and the Glagolitic, in which its ritual is
written; the Greek or Byzantine Rite extends among Greek,
Slavic, Latin, and Syrian peoples, and its services are
celebrated in Greek, Slavonic, Rumanian, and Arabic with
service-books in the Greek, Cyrillic, Latin, and Arabic
alphabets. But the Armenian Rite, whether Catholic or Gregorian,
is confined exclusively to persons of the Armenian race, and
employs the ancient Armenian language and alphabet. The history
and origin of the race have been given in the article ARMENIA,
but a word may be said of the language (Hayk, as it is called),
and its use in the liturgy. The majority of the Armenians were
converted to Christianity by St. Gregory the Illuminator, a man
of noble family, who was made Bishop of Armenia in 302. So
thoroughly was his work effected that Armenia alone of the
ancient nations converted to Christianity has preserved no pagan
literature antedating the Christian literature of the people;
pagan works, if they ever existed, seem to have perished in the
ardour of the Armenians for Christian thought and expression.
The memory of St. Gregory is so revered that the Armenians who
are opposed to union with the Holy See take pride in calling
themselves "Gregorians," implying that they keep the faith
taught by St. Gregory. Hence it is usual to call the dissidents
"Gregorians," in order to distinguish them from the Uniat
Catholics. At first the language of the Christian liturgy in
Armenia was Syriac, but later they discarded it for their own
tongue, and translated all the services into Armenian, which was
at first written in Syriac or Persian letters. About 400 St.
Mesrob invented the present Armenian alphabet (except two final
letters which were added in the year 1200) and their language,
both ancient and modern, has been written in that alphabet ever
since. Mesrob also translated the New Testament into Armenian
and revised the entire liturgy. The Armenians in their church
life have led almost as checkered an existence as they have in
their national life. At first they were in full communion with
the Universal Church. They were bitterly opposed to
Nestorianism, and, when in 451 the council of Chalcedon
condemned the doctrine of Eutyches, they seceded, holding the
opinion that such a definition was sanctioning Nestorianism, and
have since remained separated from and hostile to the Greek
Church of Constantinople. In 1054 the Greeks seceded in turn
from unity with the Roman Church, and nearly three centuries
later the Armenians became reconciled with Rome, but the union
lasted only a brief period. Breaking away from unity again, the
majority formed a national church which agreed neither with the
Greek nor the Roman Church; a minority, recruited by converts to
union with the Holy See in the seventeenth century remained
united Armenian Catholics.
The Mass and the whole liturgy of the Armenian Church is said in
Ancient Armenian, which differs considerably from the modern
tongue. The language is an offshoot of the Iranian branch of the
Indo-Germanic family of languages, and probably found its
earliest written expression in the cuneiform inscriptions; it is
unlike the Semitic languages immediately surrounding it. Among
its peculiarities are twelve regular declensions and eight
irregular declensions of nouns and five conjugations of the
verbs, while there are many difficulties in the way of
postpositions and the like. It abounds in consonants and
guttural sounds; the words of the Lord's Prayer in Armenian will
suffice as an example: "Hair mier, vor herghins ies, surp
iegitzi anun ko, ieghastze arkautiun ko, iegitzin garnk ko,
vorbes hierghins iev hergri, zhatz mier hanabazort dur miez
aissor, iev tog miez ezbardis mier, vorbes iev mek togumk merotz
bardabanatz, iev mi danir zmez i porsutiun, ail perghea i
chare." The language is written from left to right, like Greek,
Latin or English, but in an alphabet of thirty-eight peculiar
letters which are dissimilar in form to anything in the Greek or
Latin alphabet, and are arranged in a most perplexing order. For
instance, the Armenian alphabet starts off with a, p, k, t, z,
etc., and ends up with the letter f. It may also be noted that
the Armenian has changed the consonantal values of most of the
ordinary sounds in Christian names; thus George becomes Kevork;
Sergius, Sarkis; Jacob, Hagop; Joseph, Hovsep; Gregory, Krikori;
Peter, Bedros; and so on. The usual clan addition of the word
"son" (ian) to most Armenian family names, something like the
use of mac in the Gaelic languages, renders usual Armenian names
easy of identification (e.g., Azarian, Hagopian, Rubian,
Zohrabian, etc.).
The book containing the regulations for the administration of
the sacraments, analogous to the Greek Euchologion or the Roman
Ritual, is called the "Mashdotz," after the name of its compiler
St. Mesrob, who was surnamed Mashdotz. He arranged and compiled
the five great liturgical books used in the Armenian Church: (1)
the Breviary (Zhamakirk) or Book of Hours; (2) The Directory
(Tzutzak) or Calendar, containing the fixed festivals of the
year; (3) The Liturgy (Pataragakirk) or Missal, arranged and
enriched also by John Mantaguni; (4) The Book of Hymns
(Dagaran), arranged for the principal great feasts of the year;
(5) The Ritual or "Mashdotz," mentioned above. A peculiarity
about the Armenian Church is that the majority of great feasts
falling upon weekdays are celebrated on the Sunday immediately
following. The great festivals of the Christian year are divided
by the Armenians into five classes: (1) Easter; (2) feasts which
fall on Sunday such as Palm Sunday, Pentecost, etc.; (3) feasts
which are observed on the days on which they occur: the
Nativity, Epiphany, Circumcision, Presentation, and
Annunciation; (4) feasts which are transferred to the following
Sunday: Transfiguration, Immaculate Conception, Nativity B.V.M.,
Assumption, Holy Cross, feasts of the Apostles, etc.; (5) other
feasts, which are not observed at all unless they can be
transferred to Sunday. The Gregorian Armenians observe the
Nativity, Epiphany, and Baptism of Our Lord on the same day (6
January), but the Catholic Armenians observe Christmas on 25
December and the Epiphany on 6 January, and they observe many of
the other feasts of Our Lord on the days on which they actually
fall. The principal fasts are: (1) Lent; (2) the Fast of Nineveh
for two weeks, one month before the commencement of Lent -- in
reality a remnant of the ancient Lenten fast, now commemorated
only in name by our Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima
Sundays; (3) the week following Pentecost. The days of
abstinence are the Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year
with certain exceptions (e. g., during the week after the
Nativity, Easter, and the Assumption). In the Armenian Church
Saturday is observed as the Sabbath, commemorating the Old Law
and the creation of man, and Sunday, as the Lord's Day of
Resurrection and rejoicing, commemorating the New Law and the
redemption of man. Most of the saints' days are dedicated to
Armenian saints not commemorated in other lands but the Armenian
Catholics in Galicia and Transylvania use the Gregorian (not the
Julian) Calendar and have many Roman saints' days and feasts
added to their ancient ecclesiastical year.
In the actual arrangement of the church building for worship the
Armenian Rite differs both from the Greek and the Latin. While
the Armenian Church was in communion with Rome, it seems to have
united many Roman practices in its ritual with those that were
in accord with the Greek or Byzantine forms. The church building
may be divided into the sanctuary and church proper (choir and
nave.) The sanctuary is a platform raised above the general
level of the church and reached by four or more steps. The altar
is always erected in the middle of it and it is again a few
steps higher than the level of & sanctuary. It is perhaps
possible that the Armenians originally used an altar-screen or
iconostasis, like that of the Greek churches, but it has long
since disappeared. Still they do not use the open altar like the
Latin Church. Two curtains are hung before the sanctuary: a
large double curtain hangs before its entrance, extending
completely across the space like the Roman chancel rail, and is
so drawn as to conceal the altar, the priest, and the deacons at
certain parts of the Mass; the second and smaller curtain is
used merely to separate the priest from the deacons and to cover
the altar after service. Each curtain opens on both sides, and
ordinarily is drawn back from the middle. The second curtain is
not much used. The use of these curtains is ascribed to the year
340, when they were required by a canon formulated by Bishop
Macarius of Jerusalem. Upon the altar are usually the Missal,
the Book of Gospels, a cross upon which the image of Our Lord is
painted or engraved in low relief, and two or more candles,
which are lighted as in the Roman use. The Blessed Sacrament is
usually reserved in a tabernacle on the altar, and a small lamp
kept burning there at all times. In the choir, usually enclosed
within a low iron railing, the singers and priests stand in
lines while singing or reciting the Office. In the East, the
worshipper, upon entering the nave of the church, usually takes
off his shoes, just as the Mohammedans do, for the Armenian
founds this practice upon Ex., iii, 5; this custom is not
followed in the United States, nor do the Armenians there sit
cross-legged upon the floor in their churches, as they do in
Asia.
The administration of the sacraments is marked by some
ceremonies unlike those of the Roman or Greek Churches, and by
some which are a composite of the two. In the Sacrament of
Baptism the priest meets the child carried in the arms of the
nurse at the church door, and, while reciting Psalms li and
cxxx, takes two threads (one white and the other red) and twists
them into a cord, which he afterwards blesses. Usually the
godfather goes to confession before the baptism, in order that
he may fulfil his duties in the state of grace. The exorcisms
and renunciations then take place, and the recital of the Nicene
Creed and the answers to the responses follow. The baptismal
water is blessed, the anointing with oil performed, the prayers
for the catechumen to be baptized are said, and then the child
is stripped. The priest takes the child and holds it in the font
so that the body is in the water, but the head is out, and the
baptism takes place in this manner: "N., the servant of God
coming into the state of a catechumen and thence to that of
baptism, is now baptized by me, in the name of the Father [here
he pours a handful of water on the head of the child], and of
the Son [here he pours water as before], and of the Holy Ghost
[here he pours a third handful]." After this the priest dips the
child thrice under the water, saying on each occasion: "Thou art
redeemed by the blood of Christ from the bondage of sin, by
receiving the liberty of sonship of the Heavenly Father, and
becoming a co-heir with Christ and a temple of the Holy Ghost.
Amen." Then the child is washed and clothed again, generally
with a new and beautiful robe, and the priest when washing the
child says: "Ye that were baptized in Christ, have put on
Christ, Alleluia. And ye that have been illumined by God the
Father, may the Holy Ghost rejoice in you. Alleluia." Then the
passage of the Gospel of St. Matthew relating the baptism of
Christ in the Jordan is read, and the rite thus completed.
The Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred by the priest
immediately after baptism, although the Catholic Armenians
sometimes reserve it for the bishop. The holy chrism is applied
by the priest to the forehead, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, palms,
heart, spine, and feet, each time with a reference to the seal
of the Spirit. Finally, the priest lays his hand upon and makes
the sign of the cross on the child's forehead saying: "Peace to
thee, saved through God." When the confirmation is thus
finished, the priest binds the child's forehead with the red and
white string which he twisted at the beginning of the baptism
and fastens it at the end with a small cross. He gives two
candles, one red and one green, to the godfather and has the
child brought up to the altar where Communion is given to it by
a small drop of the Sacred Blood, or, if it be not at the time
of Mass, by taking the Blessed Sacrament from the Tabernacle and
signing the mouth of the child with it in the form of the cross,
saying in either case: "The plenitude of the Holy Ghost"; if the
candidate be an adult, full Communion is administered, and there
the confirmation is ended.
The formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance is: "May
the merciful God have mercy upon you and grant you the pardon of
all your sins, both confessed and forgotten; and I by virtue of
my order of priesthood and in force of the power granted by the
Divine Command: Whosesoever sins you remit on earth they are
remitted unto them in heaven; through that same word I absolve
you from all participation in sin, by thought, word and deed, in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
And I again restore you to the sacraments of the Holy Church;
whatsoever good you shall do, shall be counted to you for merit
and for glory in the life to come. May the shedding of the blood
of the Son of God, which He shed upon the cross and which
delivered human nature from hell, deliver you from your sins.
Amen." As a rule Armenians are exhorted to make their confession
and communion on at least five days in the year: the so-called
Daghavork or feasts of Tabernacles, i.e., the Epiphany, Easter,
Transfiguration, Assumption, and Exaltation of the Holy Cross.
The first two festivals are obligatory and, if an Armenian
neglects his duty, he incurs excommunication.
The Sacrament of Extreme Unction (or "Unction with Oil," as it
is called) is supposed to be administered by seven priests in
the ancient form, but practically it is performed by a single
priest on most occasions. The eyes, ears, nose, lips, hands,
feet, and heart of the sick man are anointed, with this form: "I
anoint thine eyes with holy oil, so that whatever sin thou mayst
have committed through thy sight, thou mayst be saved therefrom
by the anointing of this oil, through the grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ", and with a similar reference to the other members
anointed.
The Divine Liturgy or Mass is of course the chief rite among the
Armenians, whether Catholic or Gregorian, and it is celebrated
with a form and ceremonial which partakes in a measure both of
the Roman and Byzantine rites. As we have said, the curtains are
used instead of the altar-rail or iconostasis of those rites,
and the vestments are also peculiar. The Armenians, like the
Latins, use unleavened bread, in the form of a wafer or small
thin round cake, for consecration; but like the Greeks they
prepare many wafers, and those not used for consecration in the
Mass are given afterwards to the people as the antidoron. The
wine used must be solely the fermented juice of the best grapes
obtainable. In the Gregorian churches Communion is given to the
people under both species, the Host being dipped in the chalice
before delivering it to the communicant, but in the Catholic
churches Communion is now given only in one species, that of the
Body, although there is no express prohibition against the older
form. On Christmas Eve and Easter Eve the Armenians celebrate
Mass in the evening; the Mass then begins with the curtains
drawn whilst the introductory psalms and prophecies are sung,
but, at the moment the great feast is announced in the Introit,
the curtains are withdrawn and the altar appears with full
illumination. During Lent the altar remains entirely hidden by
the great curtains, and during all the Sundays in Lent, except
Palm Sunday, Mass is celebrated behind the drawn curtains. A
relic of this practice still remains in the Roman Rite, as shown
by the veiling of the images and pictures from Passion Sunday
till Easter Eve. The Armenian vestments for Mass are peculiar
and splendid. The priest wears a crown, exactly in the form of a
Greek bishop's mitre, which is called the Saghavard or helmet.
This is also worn by the deacons attending on a bishop at
pontifical Mass. The Armenian bishops wear a mitre almost
identical in shape with the Latin mitre, and said to have been
introduced at the time of the union with Rome in the twelfth
century, when they relinquished the Greek form of mitre for the
priests to wear in the Mass. The celebrant is first vested with
the shapik or alb, which is usually narrower than the Latin
form, and usually of linen (sometimes of silk). He then puts on
each of his arms the bazpans or cuffs, which replace the Latin
maniple; then the ourar or stole, which is in one piece; then
the goti or girdle, then the varkas or amict, which is a large
embroidered stiff collar with a shoulder covering to it; and
finally the shoochar, or chasuble, which is almost exactly like
a Roman cope. If the celebrant be a bishop, he also wears the
gonker or Greek epigonation. The bishops carry a staff shaped
like the Latin, while the vartabeds (deans, or doctors of
divinity; analogous to the Roman mitred abbots) carry a staff in
the Greek form (a staff with two intertwined serpents). No
organs are used in the Armenian church, but the elaborate vocal
music of the Eastern style, sung by choir and people, is
accompanied by two metallic instruments, the keshotz and zinzqha
(the first a fan with small bells; the second similar to
cymbals), both of which are used during various parts of the
Mass. The deacon wears merely an alb, and a stole in the same
manner as in the Roman Rite. The subdeacons and lower clergy
wear simply the alb.
The Armenian Mass may be divided into three parts: Preparation,
Anaphora or Canon, and Conclusion. The first and preparatory
portion extends as far as the Preface, when the catechumens are
directed by the deacon to leave. The Canon commences with the
conclusion of the Preface and ends with the Communion. As soon
as the priest is robed in his vestments he goes to the altar,
washes his hands reciting Psalm xxvi, and then going to the foot
of the altar begins the Mass. After saying the Intercessory
Prayer, the Confiteor and the Absolution, which is given with a
crucifix in hand, he recites Psalm xlii (Introibo ad altare),
and at every two verses ascends a step of the altar. After he
has intoned the prayer "In the tabernacle of holiness," the
curtains are drawn, and the choir sings the appropriate hymn of
the day. Meanwhile the celebrant behind the curtain prepares the
bread on the paten and fills the chalice, ready for the
oblation. When this is done the curtains are withdrawn and the
altar incensed. Then the Introit of the day is sung, then the
prayers corresponding to those of the first, second, and third
antiphons of the Byzantine Rite, while the proper psalms are
sung by the choir. Then the deacon intones "Proschume" (let us
attend), and elevates the book of the gospels, which is incensed
as he brings it to the altar, making the Little Entrance. The
choir then sings the Trisagion (Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy
and Immortal, have mercy on us) thrice. The Gregorians
interpolate after "Holy and Immortal" some words descriptive of
the feast day, such as "who was made manifest for us," or "who
didst rise from the dead," but this addition has been condemned
at Rome as being a relic of the Patripassian heresy. During the
Trisagion the Keshotz is jingled in accompaniment. Then the
Greek Ektene or Litany is sung, and at its conclusion the reader
reads the Prophecy; then the Antiphon before the Epistle is
sung, and the epistle of the day read. At the end of each the
choir responds Alleluia. Then the deacon announces "Orthi"
(stand up) and, taking the Gospels, reads or intones the gospel
of the day. Immediately afterwards, the Armenian form of the
Nicene Creed is said or sung. It differs from the creed as said
in the Roman and Greek Churches in that it has, "consubstantial
with the Father by whom all things were made in Heaven and in
Earth, visible and invisible; who for us men and our salvation
came down from Heaven, was incarnate and was made man and
perfectly begotten through the Holy Ghost of the most Holy
Virgin Mary; he assumed from her body, soul, and mind, and all
that in man is, truly and not figuratively;" and "we believe
also in the Holy Ghost, not created, all perfect, who proceedeth
from the Father (and the Son), who spake in the Law, in the
Prophets and the Holy Gospel, who descended into the Jordan, who
preached Him who was sent, and who dwelt in the Saints," and
after concluding in the ordinary form adds the sentence
pronounced by the First Council of Nicaea: "Those who say there
was a time when the Son was not, or when the Holy Ghost was not;
or that they were created out of nothing; or that the Son of God
and the Holy Ghost are of another substance or that they are
mutable; the Catholic and Apostolic church condemns." Then the
Confession of St. Gregory is intoned aloud, and the Little
Ektene sung. The kiss of peace is here given to the clergy. The
deacon at its close dismisses the catechumens, and the choir
sings the Hymn of the Great Entrance, when the bread and wine
are solemnly brought to the altar. "The Body of our Lord and the
Blood of our Redeemer are to be before us. The Heavenly Powers
invisible sing and proclaim with uninterrupted voice, Holy,
Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts."
Here the curtains are drawn, and the priest takes off his crown
(or the bishop his mitre). The priest incenses the holy gifts
and again washes his bands, repeating Psalm xxvi as before.
After the Salutation is sung, the catechumens are dismissed, and
the Anaphora or Canon begins. The Preface is said secretly, only
the concluding part being intoned to which the choir responds
with the Sanctus. The prayer before consecration follows, with a
comparison of the Old and the New Law, not found in either Greek
or Roman Rite: "Holy, Holy, Holy; Thou art in truth most Holy;
who is there who can dare to describe by words thy bounties
which flow down upon us without measure? For Thou didst protect
and console our forefathers, when they had fallen in sin, by
means of the prophets, the Law, the priesthood, and the offering
of bullocks, showing forth that which was to come. And when at
length He came, Thou didst tear in pieces the register of our
sins, and didst bestow on us Thine Only Begotten Son, the debtor
and the debt, the victim and the anointed, the Lamb and Bread of
Heaven, the Priest and the Oblation for He is the distributor
and is always distributed amongst us, without being exhausted.
Being made man truly and not apparently, and by union without
confusion, He was incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary,
Mother of God, and journeyed through all the passions of human
life, sin only excepted, and of His own free will walked to the
cross, whereby He gave life to the world and wrought salvation
for us." Then follow the actual words of consecration, which are
intoned aloud. Then follow the Offering and the Epiklesis, which
differs slightly, in the Gregorian and Catholic form; the
Gregorian is: "whereby Thou wilt make the bread when blessed
truly the body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ;" and the
Catholic form: "whereby Thou hast made the bread when blessed
truly the Body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." As there
is actually no blessing or consecration after the Epiklesis, the
Catholic form represents the correct belief. Then come the
prayers for the living and the dead, and an intoning by the
Deacons of the Commemoration of the Saints, in which nearly all
the Armenian saints are mentioned. Then the deacon intones aloud
the Ascription of Praise of Bishop Chosroes the Great in
thanksgiving for the Sacrament of the Altar. After this comes a
long Ektene or Litany, and then the Our Father is sung by the
choir. The celebrant then elevates the consecrated Host, saying
"Holy things for Holy Persons," and when the choir responds, he
continues: "Let us taste in holiness the holy and honourable
Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who came
down from heaven and is now distributed among us." Then the
choir sings antiphons in honour of the sacrifice of the Body and
Blood, and the small curtain is drawn. The priest kisses the
sacred Victim, saying "I confess and I believe that Thou art
Christ, the Son of God, who has borne the sins of the world."
The Host is divided into three parts, one of which is placed in
the chalice. The choir sing the communion hymns as appointed;
the priest and the clergy receive the Communion first, and then
the choir and people. The little curtain is withdrawn when the
Communion is given, and the great curtains are drawn back when
the people come up for Communion.
After Communion, the priest puts on his crown (or the bishop his
mitre), and the great curtains are again drawn. Thanksgiving
prayers are said behind them, after which the great curtains are
withdrawn once more, and the priest holding the book of gospels
says the great prayer of peace, and blesses the people. Then the
deacon proclaims "Orthi" (stand up) and the celebrant reads the
Last Gospel, which is nearly always invariable, being the Gospel
of St. John, i, 1 sqq.: "In the beginning was the Word, etc.";
the only exception is from Easter to the eve of Pentecost, when
they use the Gospel of St. John, xxi, 15-20: "So when they had
dined, etc." Then the prayer for peace and the "Kyrie Eleison"
(thrice) are said, the final benediction is given, and the
priest retires from the altar. Whilst Psalm xxxiv is recited or
sung by the people, the blessed bread is distributed. The
Catholic Armenians confine this latter rite to high festivals
only. The chief editions of the Gregorian Armenian Missals are
those printed at Constantinople (1823, 1844), Jerusalem (1841,
1873, and 1884), and Etschmiadzin (1873); the chief Catholic
Armenian editions are those of Venice (1808, 1874, 1895),
Trieste (1808), and Vienna (1858, 1884).
Armenian Catholics
Armenians had come to the United States in small numbers prior
to 1895. In that and the following year the Turkish massacres
took place throughout Armenia and Asia Minor, and large numbers
of Armenians emigrated to America. Among them were many Armenian
Catholics, although these were not sufficiently numerous to
organize any religious communities like their Gregorian
brethren. In 1898 Msgr. Stephan Azarian (Stephen X), then
Catholic Patriarch of Cilicia of the Armenians, who resided in
Constantinople, entered into negotiations with Cardinal
Ledochowski, Prefect of the Congregation of the Propaganda, and
through him obtained the consent of Archbishop Corrigan of New
York and Archbishop Williams of Boston for priests of the
Armenian Rite to labour in their respective provinces for the
Armenian Catholics who had come to this country. He sent as the
first Armenian missionary the Very Reverend Archpriest Mardiros
Mighirian, who had been educated at the Propaganda and the
Armenian College, and arrived in the United States on Ascension
Day, 11 May, 1899. He at first went to Boston where he assembled
a small congregation of Armenian Catholics, and later proceeded
to New York to look after the spiritual welfare of the Catholic
Armenians in Manhattan and Brooklyn. He also established a
mission station in Worcester, Massachusetts. In New York and
Brooklyn the Catholics of the Armenian Rite are divided into
those who speak Armenian and those who, coming from places
outside of the historic Armenia, speak the Arabic language. At
present this missionary is stationed at St. Stephen's church in
East Twenty-eighth Street, since large numbers of Armenians live
in that vicinity, but has another congregation under his charge
in Brooklyn. All these Catholic Armenians are too poor to build
any church or chapel of their own, and use the basement portion
of the Latin churches. Towards the end of 1906 another Armenian
priest, Rev. Manuel Basieganian, commenced mission work in
Paterson, New Jersey, and now attends mission stations
throughout New England, New Jersey, and Eastern Pennsylvania. In
1908 Rev. Hovsep (Joseph) Keossajian settled in Lawrence,
Massachusetts, and established a chapel in St. Mary's Church. He
also ministers to the spiritual wants of the Armenian Catholics
at Boston, Cambridge, East Watertown, Newton, Lynn, Chelsea, and
Lowell. In 1909 Rev. Moses Mazarian took charge of the Armenian
mission at Cleveland, Ohio, and in the cities throughout the
west. None of these have been able to build independent Armenian
churches, but usually hold their services in the Roman Catholic
churches. Besides the places already mentioned there are slender
Armenian Catholic congregations at Haverhill, Worcester,
Fitchburg, Milford, Fall River, Holyoke, and Whiting, in
Massachusetts; Nashua and Manchester, New Hampshire; Providence,
Pawtucket, and Central Falls in Rhode Island; New Britain and
Bridgeport, in Connecticut; Jersey City, West Hoboken, and
Newark, in New Jersey; and Philadelphia and Chicago. The number
of Catholic Armenians in the United States is very small, being
estimated at about 2000 to 2500 all told. So many of them reside
among the other Armenians and frequent their churches, that
there may be more who do not profess themselves Catholics, and
purely Armenian chapels would doubtless bring to light many whom
the mission priests on their rounds do not reach.
Gregorian Armenians
Inasmuch as Armenia was converted to the faith of St. Gregory
the Illuminator, the Armenians who are not in union with the
Holy See pride themselves upon the fact that they more truly
hold the faith preached by St. Gregory and they are accordingly
called Gregorians, since the word "Orthodox" would be likely to
confuse them with the Greeks. By reason of the many schools
founded in Armenia and in Constantinople by American Protestant
missionaries, their attention was turned to America, and, when
the massacres of 1895-96 took place, large numbers came to the
United States. Many of them belonged to the Protestant Armenian
Church, and identified themselves with the Congregationalists or
Presbyterians; but the greater number of them belonged to the
national Gregorian Church. In 1889 Rev. Hovsep Sarajian, a
priest from Constantinople, was sent to the Armenians in
Massachusetts, and a church which was built in Worcester in
1891, is still the headquarters of the Armenian Church in the
United States. The emigration increasing greatly after the
massacres, Father Sarajian was reinforced by several other
Armenian priests; in 1898 he was made bishop, and in 1903 was
invested with archiepiscopal authority, having Canada and the
United States under his jurisdiction. Seven great pastorates
were organized to serve as the nuclei of future dioceses: at
Worcester, Boston, and Lawrence (Massachusetts), New York,
Providence (Rhode Island), Fresno (California), and Chicago
(Illinois). To these was added West Hoboken in 1906. There are
numerous congregations and mission stations in various cities.
Churches have been built in Worcester, Fresno, and West Hoboken;
in Boston and Providence halls are rented, and in other places
arrangements are often made with Episcopal churches where their
services are held. The Gregorian Armenian clergy comprises the
archbishop, seven resident and three missionary priests, while
the number of Gregorian Armenians is given at 20,000 in the
United States. There are several Armenian societies and two
Armenian newspapers, and also Armenian reading-rooms in several
places.
II. BYZANTINE OR GREEK RITE
This rite, reckoning both the Catholic and Schismatic Churches,
comes next in expansion through the Christian world to the Roman
Rite. It also ranks next to the Roman Rite in America, there
being now (1911) about 156 Greek Catholic churches, and about
149 Greek Orthodox churches in the United States. The Eastern
Orthodox Churches of Russia, Turkey, Rumania, Servia, and
Bulgaria, and other places where they are found, make up a total
of about 120,000,000, while the Uniat Churches of the same rite,
the Greek Catholics in Austria, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, Asia,
and elsewhere, amount to upwards of 7,500,000. The Byzantine
Rite has already been fully described [see CONSTANTINOPLE, THE
RITE OF; GREEK RITES; ORTHODOX CHURCH; ALTAR (IN THE GREEK
CHURCH); ARCHIMANDRITE; EPIKLESIS; EUCHOLOGION; ICONOSTASIS], as
well as the organization and development of the various churches
using the Greek or Byzantine Rite (see EASTERN CHURCHES; GREEK
CHURCH; RUSSIA). Unlike the Armenian Rite, it has not been
confined to any particular people or language, but has spread
over the entire Christian Orient among the Slavic, Rumanian and
Greek populations. As regards Jurisdiction and authority, it has
not been united and homogeneous like the Roman Rite, nor has it,
like the Latin Church, been uniform in language, calendar, or
particular customs, although the same general teaching, ritual,
and observances have been followed. The principal languages in
which the liturgy of the Greek Rite is celebrated are: (1)
Greek; (2) Slavonic; (3) Arabic, and (4) Rumanian. It is also
celebrated in Georgian by a small and diminishing number of
worshippers, and sometimes experimentally in a number of modern
tongues for missionary purposes; but as this latter use has
never been approved, the four languages named above may be
considered the official ones of the Byzantine Rite. A portion of
the population of all the nations which use this rite, follow it
in union with the Holy See, and these have by their union placed
the Byzantine Rite in the position which it occupied before the
schism of 1054. Thus, the Russians, Bulgarians, and Servians,
who are schismatic, use the Old Slavonic in their church books
and services; so likewise do the Catholic Ruthenians,
Bulgarians, and Servians. Likewise the Rumanians of Rumania and
Transylvania, who are schismatic, use the Rumanian language in
the Greek Rite; but the Rumanians of Transylvania, who are
Catholic, do the same. The Orthodox Greeks of Greece and Turkey
use the original Greek of their rite; but the Italo-Greeks of
Italy and Sicily and the Greeks of Constantinople, who are
Catholic, use it also. The Syro-Arabians of Syria and Egypt, who
are schismatic, use the Arabic in the Greek Rite; but the
Catholic Melchites likewise use it.
The numerous emigrants from these countries to America have
brought with them their Byzantine Rite with all its local
peculiarities and its language. In some respects the environment
of all people professing the Greek Rite in union with the Holy
See but in close touch with their countrymen of the Roman Rite
has tended to change in unimportant particulars several of the
ceremonies and sometimes particular phrases of the rite (see
ITALO-GREEKS; MELCHITES; RUTHENIAN RITE), but not to a greater
extent than the various Schismatic Churches have changed the
language and ceremonies in their several national Churches.
Where this has occurred in the Greek Churches united with the
Holy See, it has been fiercely denounced as latinizing; but,
where it has occurred in Russia, Bulgaria, or Syria, it is
merely regarded by the same denouncers as a mere expression of
nationalism. There is in the aggregate a larger number of
Catholics of the Byzantine Rite in America than of the Orthodox.
The chief nationalities there which are Catholic are the
Ruthenians, Rumanians, Melchites, and Italo-Greek; the principal
Orthodox ones are the Russians, Greeks, Syro-Arabians, Servians,
Rumanians, Bulgarians, and Albanians. The history and
establishment of each of these has been already given (see GREEK
CATHOLICS IN AMERICA; GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA). As
emigration from those lands increases daily, and the
representatives of those rites are increasing in numbers and
prosperity, a still wider expansion of the Greek Rite in the
United States may be expected. Already the Russian Orthodox
Church has a strong hierarchy, an ecclesiastical seminary, and
monasteries, supported chiefly by the Holy Synod and the
Orthodox Missionary Society of Russia, and much proselytizing is
carried on among the Greek Catholics. The latter are not in such
a favourable position; they have no home governmental support,
but have had to build and equip their own institutions out of
their own slender means. The Holy See has provided a bishop for
them, but the Russians have stirred up dissensions and made his
position as difficult as possible among his own people. The
Hellenic Greek Orthodox Church expects soon to have its own
Greek bishop, and the Serbians and Rumanians also expect a
bishop to be appointed by their home authorities.
III. MARONITE RITE
The Maronite is one of the Syrian rites and has been closely
assimilated in the Church to the Roman Rite (see MARONITES).
Unlike the Syro-Chaldean or the Syro-Catholic rites, for they
all use the Syriac language in the Mass and liturgy, it has not
kept the old forms intact, but has modelled itself more and more
upon the Roman Rite. Among all the Eastern rites which are now
in communion with the Holy See, it alone has no Schismatic rite
of corresponding form and language, but is wholly united and
Catholic, thereby differing also from the other Syrian rites.
The liturgical language is the ancient Syriac or Aramaic, and
the Maronites, as well as all other rites who use Syriac, take
especial pride in the fact that they celebrate the Mass in the
very language which Christ spoke while He was on earth, as
evidenced by some fragments of His very words still preserved in
the Greek text of the Gospels (e.g., in Matt., xxvii, 46 and
Mark, v, 41). The Syriac is a Semitic language closely related
to the Hebrew, and is sometimes called Aramaic from the Hebrew
word Aram (Northern Syria). As the use of Ancient Hebrew died
out after the Babylonian captivity, the Syriac or Aramaic took
its place, very much as Italian has supplanted Latin throughout
the Italian peninsula. This was substantially the situation at
the time of Christ's teaching and the foundation of the early
Church. Syriac is now a dead language, and in the Maronite
service and liturgy bears the same relation to the vernacular
Arabic as the Latin in the Roman Rite does to the modern
languages of the people. It is written with a peculiar alphabet,
reads from right to left like the Hebrew or Arabic languages,
but its letters are unlike the current alphabets of either of
these languages. To simplify the Maronite Missals, Breviary, and
other service books, the vernacular Arabic is often employed for
the rubrics and for many of the best-known prayers; it is
written, not in Arabic characters, but in Syriac, and this
mingled language and alphabet is called Karshuni. The Epistle,
Gospel, Creed and Pater Noster are nearly always given in
Karshuni, instead of the original Arabic.
The form of the Liturgy or Mass is that of St. James, so called
because of the tradition that it originated with St. James the
Less, Apostle and Bishop of Jerusalem. It is the type form of
the Syriac Rite, but the Maronite Use has accommodated it more
and more to the Roman. This form of the Liturgy of St. James
constitutes the Ordinary of the Mass, which is always said in
the same manner, merely changing the epistles and gospels
according to the Christian year. But the Syrians, whether of the
Maronite, Syrian, Catholic, or Syro-Chaldaic rite, have the
peculiarity (not found in other liturgies) of inserting
different anaphoras or canons of the Mass, composed at various
times by different Syrian saints; these change according to the
feast celebrated, somewhat analogously to the Preface in the
Roman Rite. The principal anaphoras or canons of the Mass used
by the Maronites are: (1) the Anaphora according to the Order of
the Holy Catholic and Roman Church, the Mother of all the
Churches; (2) the Anaphora of St. Peter, the Head of the
Apostles; (3) the Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles; (4) the
Anaphora of St. James the Apostle, brother of the Lord, (5) the
Anaphora of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist; (6) the
Anaphora of St. Mark the Evangelist; (7) the Anaphora of St.
Xystus, the Pope of Rome; (8) the Anaphora of St. John surnamed
Maro, from whom they derive their name; (9) the Anaphora of St.
John Chrysostom; (10) the Anaphora of St. Basil; (11) the
Anaphora of St. Cyril; (12) the Anaphora of St. Dionysius; (13)
the Anaphora of John of Harran, and (14) the Anaphora of Marutha
of Tagrith. Besides these they have also a form of liturgy of
the Presanctified for Good Friday, after the Roman custom.
Frequent use of incense is a noticeable feature of the Maronite
Mass, and not even in low Mass is the incense omitted. In their
form of church building the Maronites have nothing special like
the Greeks with their iconostasis and square altar, or the
Armenians with their curtains, but build their churches very
much as Latins do. While the sacred vestments are hardly
distinguishable from those of the Roman Church, in some respects
they approach the Greek form. The alb, the girdle, and the
maniple or cuffs on each hand, a peculiar form of amict, the
stole (sometimes in Greek and sometimes in Roman form), and the
ordinary Roman chasuble make up the vestments worn by the priest
at Mass. Bishops use a cross, mitre, and staff of the Roman
form. The sacred vessels used on the altar are the chalice,
paten or disk, and a small star or asterisk to cover the
consecrated Host. They, like us, use a small cross or crucifix,
with a long silken banneret attached, for giving the blessings.
The Maronites use unleavened bread and have a round host, as in
the Roman Rite.
The Maronite Mass commences with the ablution and vesting at the
foot of the altar. Then, standing at the middle of the
sanctuary, the priest recites Psalm xlii, "Introibo ad altare,"
moving his head in the form of a cross. He then ascends the
altar, takes the censer and incenses both the uncovered chalice
and paten, then takes up the Host and has it incensed, puts it
on the paten and has the corporals and veils incensed. He next
pours wine in the chalice, adding a little water, and then
incenses it and covers both host and chalice with the proper
veils. Then, going again to the foot of the altar, he says aloud
the first prayer in Arabic, which is followed by an antiphon.
The strange Eastern music, with its harsh sounds and quick
changes, is a marked feature of the Maronite Rite. The altar,
the elements, the clergy, servers, and people are incensed, and
the Kyrie Eleison (Kurrilison) and the "Holy God, Holy strong
one, etc." are sung by choir and people. Then comes the Pater
Noster in Arabic, with the response: "For thine is the kingdom
and the power and the glory, world without end. Amen." The
celebrant and deacon intone the Synapte for peace, which is
followed by a short form of the Gloria in excelsis: "Glory be to
God on high, and on earth peace and good hope to the sons of
men, etc." The Phrumiur is then said; this is an introductory
prayer, and always comes before the Sedro, which is a prayer of
praise said aloud by the priest standing before the altar while
the censer is swung. It is constructed by the insertion of
verses into a more or less constant framework, commemorative of
the feast or season, and seems to be a survival of the old psalm
verses with the Gloria. For instance, a sedro of Our Lady will
commemorate her in many ways, something like our litany, but
more poetically and at length; one of Our Lord will celebrate
Him in His nativity, baptism, etc. Then come the commemorations
of the Prophets, the Apostles, the martyrs, of all the saints,
and lastly the commemoration of the departed: "Be ye not sad,
all ye who sleep in the dust, and in the decay of your bodies.
The living Body which you have eaten and the saving Blood which
you have drunk, can again vivify all of you, and clothe your
bodies with glory. O Christ, Who hast come and given peace by
Thy Blood to the heights and the depths, give rest to the souls
of Thy servants in the promised life everlasting!" The priest
then prays for the living, and makes special intercession by
name of those living or dead for whom the Mass is offered. He
blesses and offers the sacred elements, in a form somewhat
analogous to the Offertory in the Roman Rite. Another phrumiun
and the great Sedro of St. Ephraem or St. James is said, in
which the whole sacrifice of the Mass is foreshadowed. The psalm
preparatory to the Epistle in Arabic is recited, and the epistle
of the day then read. The Alleluia and gradual psalm is recited,
the Book of Gospels incensed, and the Gospel, also in Arabic,
intoned or read. The versicles of thanksgiving for the Gospel
are intoned, at several parts of which the priest and deacon and
precentor chant in unison. The Nicene Creed, said in unison by
priest and deacon, follows, and immediately after the celebrant
washes his hands saying Psalm xxvi. This ends the Ordinary of
the Mass.
The Anaphora, or Canon of the Mass, is then begun, and varies
according to season, place, and celebrant. In the Anaphora of
the Holy Catholic and Roman Church, which is a typical one, the
Mass proceeds with the prayers for peace very much as they stand
at the end of the Roman Mass; then follow prayers of confession,
adoration, and glory, which conclude by giving the kiss of peace
to the deacon and the other clergy. The Preface follows: "Let us
lift up our thoughts, our conscience and our hearts! Response.
They are lifted up to Thee, O Lord! Priest. Let us give thanks
to the Lord in fear, and adore Him with trembling. R. It is meet
and just. P. To Thee, O God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, O
glorious and holy King of Israel, for ever! R. Glory be to the
Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, now and forever, world
without end. P. Before the glorious and divine mysteries of our
Redeemer, with the pleasant things which are imposed, let us
implore the mercy of the Lord! R. It is meet and just" (and the
Preface continues secretly). Then the Sanctus is sung, and the
Consecration immediately follows. The words of Consecration are
intoned aloud, the choir answering "Amen." After the succeeding
prayer of commemoration of the Resurrection and hope of the
Second Coming and a prayer for mercy, the Epiklesis is said:
"How tremendous is this hour and how awful this moment, my
beloved, in which the Holy and Life-giving Spirit comes down
from on high and descends upon this Eucharist which is placed in
this sanctuary for our reconciliation. With silence and fear
stand and pray! Salvation to us and the peace of God the Father
of all of us. Let us cry out and say thrice: Have mercy on us, O
Lord, and send down the Holy and Life-giving Spirit upon us!
Hear me, O Lord! And let Thy living and it descend upon me and
upon this sacrifice! And so complete this mystery, that it be
the Body of Christ our God for our redemption!" The prayers for
the Pope of Rome, the Patriarch of Antioch, and all the
metropolitans and bishops and orthodox professors and believers
of the Catholic Faith immediately follow. This in turn is
followed by a long prayer by the deacon for tranquillity, peace,
and the commemoration of all the saints and doctors of the early
Church and of Syria, including St. John Maro, with the petition
for the dead at the end. Then comes the solemn offering of the
Body and the Blood for the sins of priest and people, concluding
with the words: "Thy Body and Thy Holy Blood are the way which
leads to the Kingdom!" The adoration and the fraction follow;
then the celebrant elevates the chalice together with the Host,
and says: "O desirable sacrifice which is offered for us! O
victim of reconciliation, which the Father obtained in Thy own
person! O Lamb, Who wast the same person as the High Priest who
sacrificed!" Then he genuflects and makes the sign of the Cross
over the chalice: "Behold the Blood which was shed upon Golgotha
for my redemption; because of it receive my supplication." The
"Sanctus fortis" is again sung, and the celebrant lifts the
Sacred Body on high and says: "Holy things for holy persons, in
purity and holiness!" The fraction of the Host follows after
several prayers, and the priest mingles a particle with the
Blood, receives the Body and the Blood himself, and gives
communion to the clergy and then to the people. When it is
finished he makes the sign of the Cross with the paten and
blesses the people.
Then follow a synapte (litany) of thanksgiving, and a second
signing of the people with both paten and chalice, after which
the priest consumes all the remaining species saying afterwards
the prayers at the purification and ablution. The prayer of
blessing and protection is said, and the people and choir sing:
"Alleluia! Alleluia! I have fed upon Thy Body and by Thy living
Blood I am reconciled, and I have sought refuge in Thy Cross!
Through these may I please Thee, O Good Lord, and grant Thou
mercy to the sinners who call upon Thee!" Then they sing the
final hymn of praise, which in this anaphora contains the words:
"By the prayers of Simon Peter, Rome was made the royal city,
and she shall not be shaken!" Then the people all say or sing
the Lord's Prayer; when it is finished, the final benediction is
given, and the priest, coming again to the foot of the altar,
takes off his sacred vestments and proceeds to make his
thanksgiving.
The principal editions of the Maronite missals and service books
for the deacons and those assisting at the altar are The Book of
Sacrifice according to the Rite of the Maronite Church of
Antioch (Kozhayya, 1816, 1838, and 1885; Beirut, 1888), and The
Book of the Ministry according to the Rite of the Maronite
Church of Antioch (Kozhayya, 1855).
Maronites in America
The Maronites are chiefly from the various districts of Mount
Lebanon and from the city of Beirut, and were at first hardly
distinguishable from the other Syrians and Arabic-speaking
persons who came to America. At first they were merely pedlars
and small traders, chiefly in religious and devotional articles,
but they soon got into other lines of business and at present
possess many well-established business enterprises. Not only are
they established in the United States, but they have also spread
to Mexico and Canada, and have several fairly large colonies in
Brazil, Argentine, and Uruguay. Their numbers in the United
States are variously estimated from 100,000 to 120,000,
including the native born. Many of them have become prosperous
merchants and are now American citizens. Several Maronite
families of title (Emir) have emigrated and made their homes in
the United States; among them are the Emirs Al-Kazen, Al-Khouri,
Abi-Saab, and others. There is also the well-known Arabic
novelist of the present day, Madame Karam Hanna (Afifa Karam) of
Shreveport, Louisiana, formerly of Amshid, Mount Lebanon, who
not only writes entertaining fiction, but touches on educational
topics and even women's rights. Nahum Mokarzel, a graduate of
the Jesuit College of Beirut, is a clever writer both in Arabic
and English. The Maronites are established in New York, the New
England States, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Alabama. The first
Maronite priest to visit the United States was Rev. Joseph
Mokarzel, who arrived in 1879 but did not remain. Very Rev.
Louis Kazen of Port Said, Egypt, came later, but, as there were
very few of his countrymen, he likewise returned. On 6 August,
1890, the Rev. Butrosv Korkemas came to establish a permanent
mission, and after considerable difficulty rented a tiny chapel
in a store on Washington Street, New York City. He was
accompanied by his nephew, Rev. Joseph Yasbek, then in deacon's
orders, who was later ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop
Corrigan, and founded the Maronite mission in Boston; he is now
Chor-Bishop of the Maronites and practically the head of that
rite in America.
A church was later established in Philadelphia, then one in Troy
and one in Brooklyn, after which the Maronites branched out to
other cities. At present (1911) there are fifteen Maronite
churches in the United States: in New York, Brooklyn, Troy,
Buffalo, Boston, Lawrence, Springfield, Philadelphia, Scranton,
St. Paul, St. Louis, Birmingham, Chicago, Wheeling, and
Cleveland. Meanwhile new congregations are being formed in
smaller cities, and are regularly visited by missionary priests.
The Maronite clergy is composed of two chor-bishops (deans
vested with certain episcopal powers) and twenty-three other
priests, of whom five are Antonine monks. In Mexico there are
three Maronite chapels and four priests. In Canada there is a
Maronite chapel at New Glasgow and one resident priest. There
are only two Arabic-English schools, in New York and St. Louis,
since many of the Maronite children go to the ordinary Catholic
or to the public schools. There are no general societies or
clubs with religious objects, although there is a Syrian branch
of the St. Vincent de Paul Society. About fifteen years ago
Nahum A. Mokarzel founded and now publishes in New York City the
daily newspaper, "Al Hoda" (The Guidance), which is now the best
known Arabic newspaper in the world and the only illustrated
one. His brother also publishes an Arabic monthly magazine, "Al
Alam ul Jadid" (The New World), which contains modern Arabic
literature and translations of American and English writers.
There are also two Maronite papers published in Mexico. The
Maronites also have in New York a publishing house on a small
scale, in which novels, pamphlets, and scientific and religious
works are printed in Arabic, and the usual Arabic literature
sold.
IV. OTHER ORIENTAL RITES
The rites already described are the principal rites to be met
with in the United States; but there are besides them a few
representatives of the remaining Eastern rites, although these
are perhaps not sufficiently numerous to maintain their own
churches or to constitute separate ecclesiastical entities.
Among these smaller bodies are: (1) the Chaldean Catholics and
the schismatic Christians of the same rite, known as Nestorians;
(2) the Syrian Catholics or Syro-Catholics and their correlative
dissenters, the Jacobites, and (3) finally the Copts, Catholic
or Orthodox. All of these have a handful of representatives in
America, and, as immigration increases, it is a question how
great their numbers will become.
(1) Chaldean or Syro-Chaldean Catholic Rite
Those who profess this rite are Eastern Syrians, coming from
what was anciently Mesopotamia, but is now the borderland of
Persia. They ascribe the origin of the rite to two of the early
disciples, Addeus and Maris, who first preached the Gospel in
their lands. It is really a remnant of the early Persian Church,
and it has always used the Syriac language in its liturgy. The
principal features of the rite and the celebration of the Mass
have already been described (see ADDEUS AND MARIS, LITURGY OF).
The peculiar Syriac which it uses is known as the eastern
dialect, as distinguished from that used in the Maronite and
Syro-Catholic rites which is the western dialect. The method of
writing this church Syriac among the Chaldeans is somewhat
different from that used in writing it among the western
Syrians. The Chaldeans and Nestorians use in their church books
the antique letters of the older versions of the Syriac
Scriptures which are called "astrangelo," and their
pronunciation is somewhat different. The Chaldean Church in
ancient times was most flourishing, and its history under
Persian rule was a bright one. Unfortunately in the sixth
century it embraced the Nestorian heresy, for Nestorius on being
removed from the See of Constantinople went to Persia and taught
his views (see NESTORIUS AND NESTORIANISM; PERSIA). The Chaldean
Church took up his heresy and became Nestorian. This Nestorian
Church not only extended throughout Mesopotamia and Persia, but
penetrated also into India (Malabar) and even into China. The
inroads of Mohammedanism and its isolation from the centre of
unity and from intercommunication with other Catholic bodies
caused it to diminish through the centuries. In the sixteenth
century the Church in Malabar, India, came into union with the
Holy See, and this induced the Nestorians to do likewise. The
conversion of part of the Nestorians and the reunion of their
ancient Church with the Holy See began in the seventeenth
century, and has continued to the present day. The Chaldean
Patriarch of Babylon (who really has his see at Mossul) is the
chief prelate of the Chaldean Catholics, and has under him two
archbishops (of Diarbekir and Kerkuk) and nine bishops (of
Amadia, Gezireh, Mardin, Mossul, Sakou, Salmas, Seert, Sena, and
Urmiah). The Malabar Christians have no regular Chaldean
hierarchy, but are governed by vicars Apostolic. The number of
Chaldean Catholics is estimated at about 70,000, while the
corresponding schismatic Nestorian Church has about 140,000 (see
ASIA; CHALDEAN CHRISTIANS).
There are about 100 to 150 Chaldean Catholics in the United
States; about fifty live in Yonkers, New York, while the
remainder are scattered in New York City and vicinity. The
community in Yonkers is cared for by Rev. Abdul Masih (a married
priest from the Diocese of Diarbekir), who came to this country
from Damascus some six years ago. He says Mass in a chapel
attached to St. Mary's Catholic Church, and some Nestorians also
attend. At present (1911) there are two other Chaldean priests
in this country: Rev. Joseph Ghariba, from the Diocese of
Aleppo, who is a travelling missionary for his people, and Rev.
Gabriel Oussani, who is professor of church history, patrology,
and Oriental languages in St. Joseph's Seminary at Dunwoodie
near Yonkers, and from whom some of these particulars have been
obtained. There are also said to be about 150 Nestorians in the
United States, the majority of these live and work in Yonkers,
New York. They have no priest of their own, and, where they do
not attend the Catholic Rite, are drifting into modern
Protestantism. Several of them have become members of the
Episcopal Church, and they are looked after by Dr. Abraham
Yohannan, an Armenian from Persia, now a minister in the
Episcopal Church and lecturer on modern Persian at Columbia
University. They have no church or chapel of their own.
(2) Syro-Catholic Rite
This rite is professed by those Syriac Christians who were
subjects of the ancient Patriarchate of Antioch; these are
spread throughout the plains of Syria and Western Mesopotamia,
whereas the Maronites live principally on Mount Lebanon and the
sea coast of Syria (see ASIA; EASTERN CHURCHES). The Syriac Mass
and liturgy is, like the Maronite (which is but a variation of
it), the Liturgy of St. James, Apostle and Bishop of Jerusalem.
For this reason, but principally for the reason that Jacob
Baradaeus and the greater part of the Syriac Church (see
BARADAEUS, JACOB) embraced the Monophysite heresy of Eutyches
(see MONOPHYSITES AND MONOPHYSITISM), the schismatic branch of
this rite are called Jacobites, although they call themselves
Suriani or Syrians. Thus we have in the three Syrian rites the
historic remembrance of the three greatest heresies of the early
Church after it had become well-developed. Nestorians and
Chaldeans represent Nestorianism and the return to Catholicism;
Jacobites and Syro-Catholics represent Monophysitism, and the
return to Catholicism; the Maronites represent a vanished
Monothelitism now wholly Catholic (see MONOTHELITISM AND
MONOTHELITES). The Syro-Catholics like the Maronites vary the
Ordinary of their Mass by a large number of anaphoras or canons
of the Mass, containing changeable forms of the consecration
service. The Syro-Catholics confine themselves to the anaphoras
of St. John the Evangelist, St. James, St Peter, St. John
Chrysostom, St. Xystus the Pope of Rome, St. Matthew, and St.
Basil; but the schismatic Jacobites not only use these, but have
a large number of others, some of them not yet in print,
amounting perhaps to thirty or more (see SYRIA; SYRIAN RITE,
EAST). The epistles, gospels, and many well-known prayers of the
Mass are said in Arabic instead of the ancient Syriac. The form
of their church vestments is derived substantially from the
Greek or Byzantine Rite. Their church hierarchy in union with
the Holy See consists of the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch with
three archbishops (of Bagdad, Damascus, and Homs) and five
bishops (of Aleppo, Beirut, Gezireh, Mardin-Diarbekir, and
Mossul). The number of Catholics is about 25,000 families, and
of the Jacobites about 80,000 to 85,000 persons.
There are about 60 persons of the Syro-Catholic Rite in the
eastern part of the United States, of whom forty live in
Brooklyn, New York. They are mostly from the Diocese of Aleppo,
and their emigration thither began only about five years ago.
They have organized a church, although there is but one priest
of their rite in the United States, Rev. Paul Kassar from
Aleppo, an alumnus of the Propaganda at Rome. He is a mission
priest engaged in looking after his countrymen and resides in
Brooklyn, but he is only here upon an extended leave of absence
from the diocese. There are also some thirty or forty
Syro-Jacobites in the United States; they are mostly from
Mardin, Aleppo, and Northern Syria, and have no priest or chapel
of their own.
(3) Coptic Rite
There is only a handful of Copts in this country -- in New York
City perhaps a dozen individuals. Oriental theatrical pieces, in
which an Eastern setting is required, has attracted some of them
thither, principally from Egypt. They have no priest, either
Catholic or Orthodox, and no place of worship. As to their
Church and its organization, see EASTERN CHURCHES; EGYPT: V.
Coptic Church.
I. ISSAVERDENZ, The Armenian Liturgy (Venice, 1873); IDEM, The
Armenian Ritual (Venice, 1873); IDEM, The Sacred Rites and
Ceremonies of the Armenian Church (Venice, 1888); PRINCE
MAXIMILLAN, Missa Armenica (Ratisbon and New York, 1908);
FORTESCUE, The Armenian Church (London, 1873);
ASDVADZADOURIANTS, Armenian Liturgy, Armenian and English
(London, 1887); BRIGHTMAN, Liturgies Eastern and Western
(Oxford, 1896); NILLES, Kalendarium Manuale, II (Innsbruck,
1897); U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, Religious Bodies, pt. II (Washington,
1910).
III. DANDINI, Reisebemerkungen ueber die Maroniten (Jena, 1903);
ISTAFAN-AL-DAWAIHI, A History of the Maronites (Beirut, 1890);
NAU, Opuscules Maronites (Paris, 1899-1900); KOHLER, Die kathol.
Kirchen des Morgenlandes (Darmstadt, 1896); PRINCE MAXIMILLAN,
Missa Maronitica (Ratisbon and New York, 1907); AZAR, Les
Maronites (Cambrai, 1852); ETHERRIDGE, The Syrian Churcha
(London, 1879); SILBERNAGL, Verfassung u. gegenwaertiger Bestand
saemtlicher Kirchen des Orients (Ratisbon, 1904).
ANDREW J. SHIPMAN
Ritschlianism
Ritschlianism
Ritschlianism is a peculiar conception of the nature and scope
of Christianity, widely held in modern Protestantism, especially
in Germany. Its founder was the Protestant theologian, Albrecht
Ritschl (born at Berlin, 25 March, 1822; died at Goettingen, 20
March, 1889). Having completed his studies in the gymnasium at
Stettin, where his father resided as general superintendent of
Pomerania, Ritschl attended the University of Bonn, and was for
a time captivated by the "Biblical supernaturalism" of his
teacher, K.J. Nitzsch. Mental dissatisfaction caused him to
leave Bonn in 1841, and he continued his studies under Julius
Mueller and Tholuck in the University of Halle, Disabused here
also as to the teachings of his professors, he sought and found
peace in the reconciliation doctrine of the Tuebingen professor,
Ferdinand Christian Baur, through whose writings he was won over
to the philosophy of Hegel. On 21 May, 1843, he graduated Doctor
of Philosophy at Halle with the dissertation, "Expositio
doctrinae Augustini de creatione mundi, peccato, gratia" (Halle,
1843). After a long residence in his parents' house at Stettin,
he proceeded to Tuebingen, and there entered into personal
intercourse with the celebrated head of the (later) Tuebingen
School, Ferdinand Christian Baur. He here wrote, entirely in the
spirit of this theologian, "Das Evangelium Marcions und das
kanonische Evangelium des Lukas" (Tuebingen, 1846), wherein he
attempts to prove that the apocryphal gospel of the Gnostic
Marcion forms the real foundation of the Gospel of St. Luke.
Having qualified as Privatdocent at Bonn on 20 June, 1846, he
was appointed professor extraordinary of Evangelical theology on
22 December, 1852, and ordinary professor on 10 July, 1859.
Meanwhile he had experienced a radical change in the earlier
views which he had formed under Baur's influence; this change
removed him farther and farther from the Tuebingen School.
In 1851 he had withdrawn his hypothesis concerning the origin of
the Gospel of St. Luke as untenable, and in 1856 he had a public
breach with Baur. Henceforth Ritschl was resolved to tread his
own path. In the second edition of his "Die Entstehung der
altkatholischen Kirche" (Bonn, 1857; 1st ed., 1850), he rejected
outright Baur's sharp distinction between St. Paul and the
original Apostles -- between Paulinism and Petrinism -- by
maintaining the thesis that the New Testament contains the
religion of Jesus Christ in a manner entirely uniform and
disturbed by no internal contradictions. At Goettingen, whither
he was called at Easter, 1864, his peculiar ideas first found
full realization in his "Die christliche Lehre von der
Rechtfertigung und Versoehnung" (3 vols., Bonn, 1870-4; 4th ed.,
1895-1903). His practical conception of Christianity was
described first in his lecture on "Christliche Vollkommenheit"
(Goettingen, 1874; 3rd ed., 1902) and then in his "Unterricht in
der christlichen Religion" (Bonn, 1875; 6th ed., 1903), which
was intended as a manual for the gymnasium, but proved very
unsatisfactory for practical purposes. In his small, but
important, work, "Theologie und Metaphysik" (Bonn, 1881; 3rd
ed., Goettingen, 1902), he denies the influence of philosophy in
the formation of theology. In addition to numerous smaller
writings, which were re-edited after his death under the title
"Gesammelte Aufsaetze" (2 vols., Goettingen, 1893-6), he
compiled a "Geschichte des Pietismus" (3 vols., Bonn, 1880-6),
based upon a wide study of the sources. Pietism itself, as it
appeared in Calvinistic and Lutheran circles during the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries he condemns as an abortion
of modern Protestantism caused by the false Catholic ideal of
piety. His last and incomplete, "Fides implicita, oder eine
Tintersuchung ueber Koehlerglauben, Wissen und Glauben, Glauben
und Kirche" Bonn, 1890), appeared shortly after his death. After
1888 he suffered from heart disease, of which he died in the
following year. Although Ritschl was violently attacked during
his lifetime not only by the orthodox party, but also by the
Erlangen school named after Hofmann, he attached to himself a
large circle of enthusiastic followers with Liberal leanings,
who are included under the name of Ritschlianists. The literary
organs of Ritschlianism in Germany are the "Theologische
Literaturzeitung", the "Zeitschrift fuer Theologie und Kirche",
and the "Christliche Welt".
To understand and rightly appraise the rather abstruse train of
thought in the doctrine of justification, which constitutes the
focus of Ritschl's theological system, we must go back to the
epistemology on which the whole edifice rests. Influenced by the
philosophy of Kant rather than of Lotze, Ritschl denies human
reason the power to arrive at a scientific knowledge of God.
Consequently religion cannot have an intellectual, but merely a
practical-moral foundation. Religious knowledge is essentially
distinct from scientific knowledge. It is not acquired by a
theoretical insight into truth, but, as the product of religious
faith, is bound up with the practical interests of the soul.
Religion is practice, not theory. Knowledge and faith are not
only distinct domains; they are independent of and separated
from each other. While knowledge rests on judgments of existence
(Seinsurteile), faith proceeds on independent "judgments of
value" (Werturteile), which affirm nothing concerning the
essence or nature of Divine things, but refer simply to the
usefulness and fruitfulness of religious ideas. Anticipating to
some extent the principles of Pragmatism put forward in a later
generation by W. James, Schiller, etc., Ritschl declared that
knowledge alone valuable which in practice brings us forward.
Not what the thing is "in itself", but what it is "for us", is
decisive. So far Ritschl is not original, since Schleiermacher
had already banished metaphysics from Christian philosophy, and
had explained the nature of religion subjectively as springing
from the feeling of our absolute dependence on God. Ritschl's
teaching is distinguished from that of the Berlin scholar
especially by the fact that he seeks to establish a better
Biblical and historical foundation for his ideas. In the latter
respect he is the promoter of the so-called historical-critical
method, of the application of which many Ritschlianists of the
present day are thorough masters.
Like Schleiermacher, Ritschl connects mankind's subjective need
of redemption with Jesus Christ, the "originator of the perfect
spiritual and moral religion". Since we can determine the
historical reality of Christ only though the faith of the
Christian community, the religious significance of Jesus is
really independent of His biography and investigation into His
life. A convinced Ritschlianist seems to be ready to persevere
in his Christianity, even though radical criticism were to
succeed in setting aside the historical existence of Christ. He
could be a Christian without Christ, as there could be a Tibetan
Buddhist without an historical Buddha (cf. "Christliche Welt",
1901, n. 35). Ritschl himself never wished to separate
Christianity from the Person of Christ. Since, as Ritschl
especially emphasizes in reply to Baur, the original
consciousness of the early Christian community reveals itself
with perfect consistency in the writings of the New Testament,
theology must in its investigation of the authentic contents of
the Christian religion begin with the Bible as source, for the
more thorough understanding of which the ancient Christian
professions of faith furnish an indirect, and the symbolical
books of Protestants (Luther) a direct, guidance. The
Reformation rightly elevated the Pauline justification by faith
to the central place in Christian doctrine, and in the West
carried it to a successful conclusion. As the necessary doctrine
of salvation through Christ, this doctrine of justification is
thus alone obligatory for theology and Church, while the other
convictions and institutions of the earliest Christian community
are of a subsidiary nature. For this reason, therefore, Luther
himself recognized the Bible as the Word of God only in so far
as it "makes for Christ". Since the Christian faith exists only
through personal experience or subjective acquaintance with
justification and reconciliation, the objects of faith are not
presented to the mind from without through a Divine revelation
as an authoritative rule of faith, but become vividly present
for the Christian only through subjective experience. The
revelation of God is given only to the believer who religiously
lays hold of it by experience, and recognizes it as such.
Justifying faith especially is no mere passive attitude of man
towards God, but an active trust in Him and His grace, evincing
itself chiefly in humility, patience, and prayer. It is by no
means a dogmatical belief in the truth of Revelation, but it
possesses essentially a thoroughly practico-moral character.
Ritschlianism can thus speak without any inconsistency of an
"undogmatic Christianity" (Kaftan). The harmonizing of the
free-religious moral activity of the Christian with dependence
on God is proclaimed by Ritschl the "master-question of
theology". This fundamental problem he solves as follows: The
returning sinner is at first passively determined by God,
whereupon justification achieves its practical success in
reconciliation and regeneration, which in their turn lead to
Christian activity. Justification and reconciliation are so
related that the former is also the forgiveness of sin and as
such removes man's consciousness of guilt (i.e., mistrust of
God), while the latter, as the cessation of active resistance to
God, introduces a new direction of the will calculated to
develop Christian activity in the true fulfilment of one's
vocation. These two -- justification and reconciliation -- form
the basis of our sonship as children of God. This justification
identical with forgiveness of sin is however, no real
annihilation of sin, but a forensic declaration of
righteousness, inasmuch as God regards the believing sinner, in
spite of his sins, as just and pleasing in consideration of the
work of Christ.
A special characteristic of Ritschlianism lies in the assertion
that justifying faith is possible only within the Christian
community. The Church of Christ (by which, however, is to be
understood no external institution with legal organization) is
on the one hand the aggregate of all the justified believers,
but on the other hand has, as the enduring fruit of the work of
Christ, a duration and existence prior to all its members just
as the whole is prior to its parts. Like the children in the
family and the citizens in the state, the believers must also be
born in an already existing Christian community. In this alone
is God preached as the Spirit of Love, just as Jesus Himself
preached, and in this alone, through the preaching of Christ and
His work, is that justifying faith rendered possible, in virtue
of which the individual experiences regeneration and attains to
adoption as a son of God (cf. Conrad, "Begriff und Bedeutung der
Gemeinde in Ritschl's Theologie" in "Theol. Studien und Krit.",
1911, 230 sqq.). It is plain that, according to this view,
Christian baptism loses all its importance as the real door to
the Church.
What is Ritschl's opinion of Jesus Christ? Does he consider Him
a mere man? If we set aside the pious flourishes with which he
clothes the form of the Saviour, we come speedily to the
conviction that he does not recognize the true Divinity of Jesus
Christ. As the efficacious bearer and transmitter of the Divine
Spirit of Love to mankind Jesus is "superordinate" to all men,
and has in the eternal decree of God a merely ideal
pre-existence. He is therefore, as for the earliest community so
also for us, our "God and Saviour" only in the metaphorical
sense. All other theological questions -- such as the Trinity,
the metaphysical Divine sonship of Christ, original sin,
eschatology -- possess an entirely secondary importance. This
self-limitation is specially injurious to the doctrine
concerning God: all the Divine attributes, except such as are
practico-moral, are set aside as unknowable. The essence of God
is love, to which all His other attributes may be traced. Thus,
His omnipotence is another phase of love inasmuch as the world
is nothing else than the means for the establishment of the
Kingdom of God. Even the Divine justice ends in love, especially
in God's fidelity to the chosen people in the Old Testament and
to the Christian community in the New. Every other explanation
of the relation between the just God and sinful mankind -- such
as the juridical doctrine of satisfaction taught by St. Anselm
of Canterbury -- is called by Ritschl "sub-Christian". Only the
sin against the Holy Ghost, which renders man incapable of
salvation, calls forth the anger of God and hurls him into
everlasting damnation. Other evils decreed by God are not
punishments for sin, but punishments intended for our
instruction and improvement. Sin being conceivable only as
personal guilt, the idea of original sin is morally
inconceivable.
Although Ritschlianism has undergone manifold alterations and
developments in one direction or another at the hands of its
learned representatives (Harnack, Kaftan, Bender, Sell, and so
on), it has remained unchanged in its essential features. The
Liberal and modern-positive theology of Germany is distinctly
coloured with Ritschlianism, and the efforts of orthodox
Protestantism to combat it have met with poor success. More than
a decade ago Adolf Zahn ("Abriss einer Geschichte der
evangelischen Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert", 3rd ed., Stuttgart,
1893) passed the sharp judgment on Ritschlianism, that it was "a
rationalist scepticism and Pelagian moralism, vainly decked out
in the truths of the Reformers, the threadbare garment of
Lutheranism, for purposes of deceit; the clearest sign of the
complete exhaustion and impoverishment of Protestantism, which
at the end of the nineteenth century again knows no more than
the common folk have ever known: 'Do right and fear no man'."
The Catholic critic will probably see in the scorn for
metaphysics and the elimination of the intellectual factor the
chief errors of Ritschlian theology. The separation of faith and
knowledge, of theology and metaphysics, has indeed a long and
gloomy history behind it. The philosophy of the Renaissance,
with its doctrine of the "double truth" erected the first
separating wall between faith and knowledge; this division was
increased by Spinoza, when he assigned to faith the role of
concerning itself with pia dogmata, but entrusted to philosophy
alone the investigation of truth. Finally appeared Kant, who cut
the last threads which still held together theology and
metaphysics. By denying the demonstrability of the existence of
God through reason, he consistently effected the complete
segregation of faith and knowledge into two "separate
households". In this he was followed by Schleiermacher and
Ritschl. Since recent Modernism, with its Agnosticism and
Immanentism, adopts the same attitude, it is, whether avowedly
or not, the death-knell not only of Christianity, but of every
objective religion. Consequently, the regulations of Pius X
against Modernism represent a contest in which the vital
interests of the Catholic religion are at stake. As the foremost
champion of the powers and rights of reason in its relations
with faith, Catholicism is the defender of the law of causality
which leads to the knowledge of metaphysical and Divine truths,
the guardian of a constant, eternal, and unalterable truth, and
the outspoken foe of every form of Scepticism, Criticism,
Relativism, and Pragmatism -- always in the interests of
Christianity itself, since, without a rational foundation and
substructure, Revelation and faith would hang unsupported in the
air. In this statement the Catholic opposition to Ritschlianism
in one of the most fundamental points of difference is
sufficiently characterized.
O. RITSCHL, Albert Ritschl's Leben (Leipzig, 1892-6). Concerning
the system Consult: FRICKE, Metaphysik u. Dogmatik in ihrem
gegenseitigen Verhaeltnis unter besonderer Beziehung auf die
Ritschl'sche Theologie (Leipzig, 1882); THICOTTER, Darstellung
u. Beurteilung der Theologie A. Ritschl's (Leipzig, 1887);
FLUeGEL, A. Ritschl's philosoph. Ansichten (Langensalza, 1886);
LIPSIUS, Die Ritschl'sche Theologie (Leipzig, 1888); HAeRING, Zu
Ritschl's Versoehnungslehre (Zurich, 1888); HERRMANN, Der
evangel. Glaube u. die Theologie A. Ritschl's (Marburg, 1890);
PFLEIDERER, Die Ritschl'sche Theologie (Brunswick, 1891);
BERTRAND, Une nouvelle conception de la Redemption. La doctrine
de la justification et de la reconciliation dans le systeme
theologique de Ritschl (Paris, 1891); GOYAU, L'Allemagne
religieuse (Paris, 1897), 94 sqq.; GARVIE, The Ritschlian
Theology (Edinburgh, 1899); KATTENBUSCH, Von Schleiermacher zu
Ritschl (Halle, 1903); SCHOEN, Les origines histor. de la theol.
de Ritschl (Paris, 1893); FABRE, Les principes philosophiques de
la theol. de Ritschl (Paris, 1894); VON KUGELCHEN, Grundriss der
Ritschl'schen Dogmatik (Goettingen, 1903); SWING, The Theology
of A. Ritschl (New York, l901); FABRICIUS, Die Entwickelung in
R.'s Theol. von 1874-1889 (Leipzig, 1909); HERRMANN, tr.
MATHESON AND STEWART, Faith and Morals: I. Faith as Ritschl
Defined it; II. The Moral Law, as Understood in Romanism and
Protestantism (London, 1910). Cf. also SANDAY, Christologies
Ancient and Modern (Oxford, 1910), 81 sqq. For refutation
consult: STRANGE, Der dogmatische Ertrag der Ritschl'schen
Theologie nach Kaftan (Leipzig, 1906); SCHAeDER, Theozentrische
Theologie, I (Leipzig, 1909); EDGHILL, Faith and Fact, A Study
of Ritschlianism (London, 1910) (a fundamental work). See also:
O. RITSCHL in Realencykl. fuer prot. Theol. (Leipzig, 1906), s.
v. Ritschl, Albrecht Benjamin; American Journal of Theol.
(Chicago, 1906), 423 sqq.; KIEFL, Der geschichtl. Christus u.
die moderne Philosophie (Mainz, 1911), 51 sqq.
JOSEPH POHLE
Joseph Ignatius Ritter
Joseph Ignatius Ritter
Historian, b. at Schweinitz, Silesia, 12 April, 1787; d. at
Breslau, 5 Jan., 1857. He pursued his philosophical and
theological studies at the University of Breslau, was ordained
priest in 1811, and for several years was engaged in pastoral
work. An annotated translation of St. John Chrysostom's treatise
on the priesthood not only obtained for him the doctorate in
theology, but also attracted the attention of the Prussian
ministry, which in 1823 named him ordinary professor of church
history and patrology at the University of Bonn. Here he made
the acquaintance of Hermes, and became favorably disposed
towards his system. He was in 1830 named professor and canon at
Breslau. As administrator of this diocese (1840-43), he atoned
for his earlier Hermesian tendencies by his fearless Catholic
policy, notably in the question of mixed marriages. Later he
published tracts defending the Church against the attacks of
Ronge, the founder of the so-called German Catholics. Also
worthy of commendation is his beneficence, exercised
particularly towards deserving students. His principal writings
which bear on church history and canon law are: "Handbuch der
Kirchengeschichte" Elberfeld and Bonn, 1826-33; sixth edition by
Ennen, Bonn, 1862; "Irenicon oder Briefe zur Foerderung des
Friedens zwischen Kirche u. Staat", Leipzig, 1840; "Der
Capitularvicar", Muenster, 1842; "Geschichte der Dioecese
Breslau", Breslau, 1845. With J. W. J. Braun he brought out a
new edition of Pellicia's work, "De Christianae ecclesiae
politia", Cologne, 1829-38.
BELLAMY, La Theologie Cath. au XIXe siecle (Paris, 1904), 36.
N.A. WEBER
Ritual
Ritual
The Ritual (Rituale Romanum) is one of the official books of the
Roman Rite. It contains all the services performed by a priest
that are not in the Missal and Breviary and has also, for
convenience, some that are in those books. It is the latest and
still the least uniform book of our rite.
When first ritual functions were written in books, the
Sacramentary in the West, the Euchologion in the East contained
all the priest's (and bishop's) part of whatever functions they
performed, not only the holy Liturgy in the strict sense, but
all other sacraments, blessings, sacramentals, and rites of
every kind as well. The contents of our Ritual and Pontifical
were in the Sacramentaries. In the Eastern Churches this state
of things still to a great extent remains. In the West a further
development led to the distinction of books, not according to
the persons who use them, but according to the services for
which they are used. The Missal, containing the whole Mass,
succeeded the Sacramentary. Some early Missals added other
rites, for the convenience of the priest or bishop; but on the
whole this later arrangement involved the need of other books to
supply the non-Eucharistic functions of the Sacramentary. These
books, when they appeared, were the predecessors of our
Pontifical and Ritual. The bishop's functions (ordination,
confirmation, etc.) filled the Pontifical, the priest's offices
(baptism, penance, matrimony, extreme unction, etc.) were
contained in a great variety of little handbooks, finally
replaced by the Ritual.
The Pontifical emerged first. The book under this name occurs
already in the eighth century (Pontifical of Egbert). From the
ninth there is a multitude of Pontificals. For the priest's
functions there was no uniform book till 1614. Some of these are
contained in the Pontificals; often the chief ones were added to
Missals and Books of Hours. Then special books were arranged,
but there was no kind of uniformity in arrangement or name.
Through the Middle Ages a vast number of handbooks for priests
having the care of souls was written. Every local rite, almost
every diocese, had such books; indeed many were compilations for
the convenience of one priest or church. Such books were called
by many names-- Manuale, Liber agendarum, Agenda, Sacramentale,
sometimes Rituale. Specimens of such medieval predecessors of
the Ritual are the Manuale Curatorum of Roeskilde in Denmark
(first printed 1513, ed. J. Freisen, Paderborn, 1898), and the
Liber Agendarum of Schleswig (printed 1416, Paderborn, 1898).
The Roeskilde book contains the blessing of salt and water,
baptism, marriage, blessing of a house, visitation of the sick
with viaticum and extreme unction, prayers for the dead, funeral
service, funeral of infants, prayers for pilgrims, blessing of
fire on Holy Saturday, and other blessings. The Schleswig book
has besides much of the Holy Week services, and that for All
Souls, Candlemas, and Ash Wednesday. In both many rites differ
from the Roman forms.
In the sixteenth century, while the other liturgical books were
being revised and issued as a uniform standard, there was
naturally a desire to substitute an official book that should
take the place of these varied collections. But the matter did
not receive the attention of the Holy See itself for some time.
First, various books were issued at Rome with the idea of
securing uniformity, but without official sanction. Albert
Castellani in 1537 published a Sacerdotale of this kind; in 1579
at Venice another version appeared, arranged by Grancesco
Samarino, Canon of the Lateran; it was re-edited in 1583 by
Angelo Rocca. In 1586 Giulio Antonio Santorio, Cardinal of St.
Severina, printed a handbook of rites for the use of priests,
which, as Paul V says, "he had composed after long study and
with much industry and labor" (Apostolicae Sedis). This book is
the foundation of our Roman Ritual. In 1614 Paul V published the
first edition of the official Ritual by the Constitution
"Apostolicae Sedis" of 17 June. In this he points out that
Clement VIII had already issued a uniform text of the Pontifical
and the Caerimoniale Episcoporum, which determines the functions
of many other ecclesiastics besides bishops. (That is still the
case. The Caerimoniale Episcoporum forms the indispensable
complement of other liturgical books for priests too.) "It
remained", the pope continues, "that the sacred and authentic
rites of the Church, to be observed in the administration of
sacraments and other ecclesiastical functions by those who have
the care of souls, should also be included in one book and
published by authority of the Apostolic See; so that they should
carry out their office according to a public and fixed standard,
instead of following so great a multitude of Rituals".
But, unlike the other books of the Roman Rite, the Ritual has
never been imposed as the only standard. Paul V did not abolish
all other collections of the same kind, nor command every one to
use only his book. He says: "Wherefore we exhort in the Lord"
that it should be adopted. The result of this is that the old
local Rituals have never been altogether abolished. After the
appearance of the Roman edition these others were gradually more
and more conformed to it. They continued to be used, but had
many of their prayers and ceremonies modified to agree with the
Roman book. This applies especially to the rites of baptism,
Holy Communion, the form of absolution, extreme unction. The
ceremonies also contained in the Missal (holy water, the
processions of Candlemas and Palm Sunday, etc.), and the prayers
also in the Breviary (the Office for the Dead) are necessarily
identical with those of Paul V's Ritual; these have the absolute
authority of the Missal and Breviary. On the other hand, many
countries have local customs for marriage, the visitation of the
sick, etc., numerous special blessings, processions and
sacramentals not found in the Roman book, still printed in
various diocesan Rituals. It is then by no means the case that
every priest of the roman Rite uses the Roman Ritual. Very many
dioceses or provinces still have their own local handbooks under
the name of Rituale or another (Ordo administrandi sacramenta,
etc.), though all of these conform to the Roman text in the
chief elements. Most contain practically all the Roman book, and
have besides local additions.
The further history of the Rituale Romanum is this: Benedict XIV
in 1752 revised it, together with the Pontifical and
Caerimoniale Episcoporum. His new editions of these three books
were published by the Brief "Quam ardenti" (25 March, 1752),
which quotes Paul V's Constitution at length and is printed, as
far as it concerns this book, in the beginning of the Ritual. He
added to Paul V's text two forms for giving the papal blessing
(V, 6; VIII, 31). Meanwhile a great number of additional
blessings were added in an appendix. This appendix is now nearly
as long as the original book. Under the title Benedictionale
Romanum it is often issued separately. Leo XIII approved an
editio typica published by Pustet at Ratisbon in 1884. This is
now out of date. The Ritual contains several chants (for
processions, burials, Office of the Dead, etc.). These should be
conformable to the Motu Proprio of Pius X of 22 Nov., 1903, and
the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 8 Jan., 1904.
All the Catholic liturgical publishers now issue editions of
this kind, approved by the Congregation.
The Rituale Romanum is divided into ten "titles" (tituli); all,
except the first, subdivided into chapters. In each (except I
and X) the first chapter gives the general rules for the
sacrament or function, the others give the exact ceremonies and
prayers for various cases of administration. Titulus I (caput
unicum) is "of the things to be observed in general in the
administration of sacraments"; II, About baptism, chap. vi gives
the rite when a bishop baptizes, vii the blessing of the font,
not on Holy Saturday or Whitsun Eve; III, Penance and
absolutions from excommunication; IV, Administration of Holy
Communion (not during Mass); V, Extreme Unction, the seven
penitential psalms, litany, visitation and care of the dying,
the Apostolic blessing, commendation of a departing soul; VI, Of
funerals, Office of the Dead, absolutions at the grave on later
days, funerals of infants; VII, Matrimony and churching of
women; VII, Blessings of holy water, candles, houses (on Holy
Saturday), and many others; then blessings reserved to bishops
and priests who have special faculties, such as those of
vestments, ciboriums, statues, foundation stones, a new church
(not, of course, the consecration, which is in the Pontifical),
cemeteries, etc.; IX, Processions, for Candlemas, Palm Sunday,
Rogation Days, Corpus Christi, etc.; X, Exorcism and forms for
filling up parochial books (of baptism, confirmation, marriage,
status animarum, the dead). The blessings of tit. VIII are the
old ones of the Ritual. The appendix that follows tit. X
contains additional forms for blessing baptism water, for
confirmation as administered by a missionary priest, decrees
about Holy Communion and the "Forty Hours" devotion, the
litanies of Loreto and the Holy Name. Then follow a long series
of blessings, not reserved; reserved to bishops and priests they
delegate, reserved to certain religious orders; then more
blessings (novissim) and a second appendix containing yet
another collection. These appendixes grow continually. As soon
as the Sacred Congregation of Rites approves a new blessing it
is added to the next edition of the Ritual.
The Milanese Rite has its own ritual (Rituale Ambrosianum,
published by Giacomo Agnelli at the Archiepiscopal Press,
Milan). In the Byzantine Rite the contents of our ritual are
contained in the Euchologion. The Armenians have a ritual
(Mashdotz) like ours. Other schismatical Churches have not yet
arranged the various parts of this book in one collection. But
nearly all the Eastern Catholics now have Rituals formed on the
Roman model (see LITURGICAL BOOKS, IV).
BARUFFALDI, Ad rituale romanum commentaria (Venice, 1731);
CATALANI, Rituale romanum . . . perpetuis commentariis exornatum
(Rome, 1757); ZACCARIA, Bibliotheca Ritualis (Rome, 1776);
THALHOFER, Handbuch der kath. Liturgik, II (Freiburg, 1893),
509-36.
ADRIAN FORTESCUE
Ritualists
Ritualists
The word "Ritualists" is the term now most commonly employed to
denote that advanced section of the High Church party in the
Anglican Establishment, which since about 1860 has adhered to
and developed further the principles of the earlier Tractarian
Movement. Although this designation is one that is not adopted
but rather resented by the persons to whom it is applied, it
cannot exactly be called a nickname. "Ritualism" in the middle
of the nineteenth century not uncommonly meant the study or
practice of ritual, i. e. ecclesiastical ceremonial; while those
who favoured ritualism were apt to be called "ritualists". For
example, the Rev. J. Jebb, in a publication of 1856 entitled
"The Principle of Ritualism Defended", defines ritualism
equivalently as "a sober and chastened regard for the outward
accessories of worship", and insists further that "we need
something more than a lawyer's mind to examine fairly
ecclesiastical questions. The Church requires that divines and
ritualists should be called into counsel". It was only some time
later, about 1865 or 1866, that the word came to be used as the
name of a party and was printed with a capital letter.
Unlike many other party names which have grown up in the course
of controversy, the word "Ritualists" does very fairly indicate
the original, if not the most fundamental, characteristic which
has divided those so designated from their
fellow-High-Churchmen. The movement headed by Newman and his
friends had been primarily doctrinal. Pusey always stated that
the leaders had rather discouraged as too conspicuous anything
in the way of ceremonies, fearing that they might awaken
prejudice and divert attention from more important issues.
Nevertheless the sympathies awakened for the traditions of a
Catholic past, and especially the revival of faith in the Real
Presence and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, could not fail in the
long run to produce an effect upon the externals of worship.
Many of the followers were more venturous than the leaders
approved. Moreover, the conversion of Newman and other prominent
Tractarians, while somewhat breaking up the party and arresting
the progress of events at Oxford, had only transferred the
movement to the parish churches throughout the country, where
each incumbent was in a measure free to follow his own light and
to act for himself. The Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, Vicar of St.
Paul's, Knightsbridge, became notorious for a number of
innovations in ritual, notably in such details as the use of
altar lights, cross, and coverings which brought him into
conflict with his bishop (in 1850) and led in the end to his
resigning his benefice. In 1859 still greater sensation was
caused by the "Romish" ceremonial of the Rev. Bryan King at St:
George's in the East. The roughs of the district, with some
violent Evangelicals, for months together continued to interrupt
the services with brawling and rioting. The English Church
Union, however, founded at about this period to defend the
interests of the High Church movement, lent effective aid, and
public opinion turned against the authors of these disturbances.
During the years that followed ceremonial innovations, imitating
more and more pronouncedly the worship of the Catholic Church,
spread throughout the country. A regular campaign was carried
on, organized on the one side by the English Church Union and on
the other by the Church Association, which latter was called
into existence in 1865 and earned amongst its opponents the
nickname of the "Persecution Company Limited". The lovers of
ornate ceremonial were for the most part sincerely convinced
that they were loyal to the true principles of Anglicanism, and
that they were rightly insisting on the observance of the letter
of the law embodied in the so-called "Ornaments Rubric", which
stands at the head of the Morning Service in the Book of Common
Prayer. It could not of course be denied that the practices
which the Tractarians were introducing had long been given up in
the Church of England. But though these had fallen completely
into abeyance, the party contended that the letter of the Prayer
Book made it a duty to revive them. It may be said indeed that
it is round the Ornaments Rubric that the whole ritualistic
controversy has turned down to the present day. For this reason
a somewhat full account of it is indispensable.
The first Prayer Book of Edward VI, which came into use on 9
June, 1549, has the following rubric at the beginning of the
Mass: "Upon the day and at the time appointed for the
administration of the Holy Communion, the Priest that shall
execute the holy ministry shall put upon him the vesture
appointed for that ministration, that is to say a white Alb
plain, with a Vestment or Cope." This first Prayer Book of
Edward VI remained in use for three years when it was supplanted
by the second Prayer Book of Edward VI (1 Nov., 1552). In this,
under the influences of Continental reformers, the rubric just
quoted was expunged and the following substituted: "And here is
to be noted that the Minister at the time of the Communion, and
at all other times in his ministration, shall use neither Albae,
Vestment or Cope". After the accession of Elizabeth a revised
Prayer Book was issued in 1559, which contained the rubric in
the following form: "And here it is to be noted that the
minister at the time of the Communion and at all other times in
his ministration shall use such ornaments in the Church as were
in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the
reign of King Edward VI according to the Act of Parliament set
in the beginning of the book." In spite of a brief suppression
under the Long Parliament and during the Commonwealth, the same
rubric was restored in substantially identical terms in the
Prayer Book of 1662 which remains in force to-day. Now it must
not of course be forgotten that the word "ornaments" is used in
a technical sense which has been defined by the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council to include "all the several
articles used in the performance of the rites and services of
the Church". Vestments, books, cloths, chalices, and patens must
be regarded as church ornaments. In modern times even organs and
bells are held to fall under this denomination. Further there
can be no doubt that if the reference to the second year of
Edward VI be strictly interpreted, much Catholic ceremonial was
then still retained embracing such adjuncts as lights, incense,
vestments, crosses, etc. There is considerable controversy
regarding the precise meaning of the rubric, but, however we
regard it, it certainly gives much more latitude to the lovers
of ritual than was recognized by the practice of the English
Church in 1850.
Although of recent years the innovators have gone far beyond
those usages which could by any possibility be covered by a
large interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric, it seems clear
that in the beginning the new school of clergy founded
themselves upon this and were not exactly accused of doing what
was illegal. Their position, a position recognized in 1851 by
the bishops themselves, was rather that of wishing "to restore
an unusual strictness of ritual observance". Their tendencies no
doubt were felt to be "popish", but they were primarily censured
by the Protestant party as "ultra-rubricians". The first appeal
to legal tribunals in the Westerton v. Liddell case (Mr. Liddell
was the successor of Mr. Bennett) terminated, after appeal to
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, substantially in
favour of the Ritualists. It was decided that the Ornaments
Rubric did establish the legality of a credence table, coloured
frontals and altar coverings, candlesticks and a cross above the
holy table. This gave confidence to the party in other
directions and between the years 1857 and 1866 there was a
considerable extension of ritual usages such as the Eucharistic
vestments, altar lights, flowers, and incense, while the claim
was generally made that they were all perfectly lawful.
With the year 1866 began a period of almost incessant
controversy. Six specific practices, known as the "Six Points",
were about this time recognized as constituting the main
features in the claims of the less extreme Ritualists. They
were:
+ (1) the eastward position (i. e. that by which the minister in
consecrating turns his back to the people);
+ (2) the use of incense;
+ (3) the use of altar lights;
+ (4) the mixed chalice;
+ (5) the use of vestments;
+ (6) the use of wafer bread.
A committee of the Lower House of Convocation in 1866 expressed
a strong opinion that most of these things should not be
introduced into parish churches without reference to the bishop.
A royal commission followed (1867-70), but came to no very clear
or unanimous decision except as regards the inexpediency of
tolerating any vesture which departs from what had long been the
established usage of the English Church. Meanwhile the Dean of
Arches, and, after appeal, the Privy Council delivered judgment
in the Mackonochie case and between them decided against the
legality of the elevation, use of incense, altar lights,
ceremonially mixed chalice and against any position of the
minister which would hide the manual acts from the communicants.
Even more important was the judgement of the same Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council in the Purchas Case (Ap. 1871),
which besides confirming these previous decisions, even as
against the opinion of the Dean of Arches, declared in more
unequivocal terms the illegality of wafer-bread and of all
Eucharistic vestments.
The reaction among the High Church party against this sweeping
condemnation was considerable, and it is probably true that much
of the strong feeling which has existed ever since against the
Judicial Committee as a court of appeal is traceable to this
cause, Many of the Ritualists not only refuse to acknowledge the
jurisdiction of a secular court in church matters but they
declare themselves justified in withholding obedience from their
bishops as long as the bishops are engaged in enforcing its
decrees. The passing of the Public Worship Regulation Act in
1874 which, as Disraeli stated in Parliament was meant "to put
down the Ritualists", seems only to have led to increased
litigation, and the Risdale judgment in 1877 by which the
Committee of the Privy Council, after elaborate argument by
counsel on either side, reconsidered the question of Eucharistic
vestments and the eastward position, reaffirming the
condemnation of the former but pronouncing the latter to be
lawful, providing that it did not render the manual acts
invisible to the congregation gave encouragement to the
Ritualists by showing that earlier decisions were not
irreversible. In any case there were no signs of any greater
disposition to submit to authority. The committal of four
clergymen to prison in the years 1878-81 for disobedience to the
order of the courts whose jurisdiction they challenged, only
increased the general irritation and unrest. In 1888 came
another sensation. Proceedings were taken before the Archbishop
of Canterbury, sitting with episcopal assessors against Dr.
King, Bishop of Lincoln, for various ritualistic practices. In
his judgment subsequently confirmed by the Privy Council
Archbishop Benson sanctioned under carefully defined conditions
the eastward position, mixed chalice, altar lights, the
ablutions, and the singing of the Agnus Dei, but forbade the
signing of the cross in the air when giving the absolution and
the benediction.
Naturally the effect of these alternate relaxations and
restrictions was not favourable to the cause of sober
uniformity. The movement went on. The bishops had probably grown
a little weary in repressing an energy which was much more full
of conviction than their own, and in the years which followed,
especially in the Diocese of London, under Bishop Temple, a
large measure of licence seems to have been granted or at any
rate taken. The rapid spread of "romanizing" practices, though
in their extreme form they were confined to a comparatively
small number of churches, began to attract general attention,
while causing profound uneasiness to Evangelicals and
Nonconformists. In 1898 Sir William Harcourt started a vigorous
campaign against ritualistic lawlessness by a series of letters
in the "Times", and almost concurrently Mr. John Kensit and his
followers appealed to another phase of public opinion by their
organized interruptions of the services in the churches they
disapproved of. It was felt once again that something must be
done and this time the remedy took the form of the so-called
"Lambeth Hearings", when the Archbishops of Canterbury and York,
after listening to legal and expert argument, delivered a joint
"opinion upon certain burning questions, to wit
+ (a) the use of incense and processional lights, and
+ (b) the practice of reservation.
On 31 July, 1899, they jointly pronounced the use of incense to
be inadmissible, and on 1 May, 1900, in two independent
"opinions", they concurred in forbidding any form of reservation
of the consecrated elements. Very little was effected by this or
by a series of Church Discipline Bills which were introduced
into Parliament, but which died stillborn. Consequently in 1904
a royal commission was appointed "to inquire into the alleged
prevalence of breaches or neglect of the Law relating to the
conduct of Divine Service in the Church of England and to the
ornaments and fittings of churches." The commission, after
collecting an immense mass of evidence from ecclesiastics and
laymen of every shade of opinion, not forgetting the agents
employed by the Church Association to keep watch on the services
in ritualistic churches, issued a voluminous report in 1906.
Although the commission has accomplished little more than the
propounding of certain suggestions regarding the reconstitution
of the ecclesiastical courts, suggestions which have not yet
been acted upon, the "Report" is a document of the highest
importance for the evidence which it contains of the
developments of Ritualism. The commissioners single out certain
practices which they condemn as being graver in character and of
a kind that demand immediate suppression. No doubt the numerical
proportion of the churches in which the clergy go to these
lengths is small, but the number seems to be increasing. The
practices censured as of special gravity and significance, are
the following: "The interpolation of prayers and ceremonies
belonging to the Canon of the Mass. The use of the words 'Behold
the Lamb of God' accompanied by the exhibition of a consecrated
wafer or bread. Reservation of the sacrament under conditions
which lead to its adoration. Mass of the presanctified. Corpus
Christi processions with the sacrament. Benediction with the
sacrament. Celebration of the Holy Eucharist with the intent
that there should be no communicant except the celebrant. Hymns,
prayers and devotions involving invocation or a confession to
the Blessed Virgin or the saints. The observance of the
festivals of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of
the Sacred Heart. The veneration of images and roods." These
practices are described as having an exceptional character
because they are at once
+ (1) in flagrant contradiction with the teaching of the
Articles and Prayer Book;
+ (2) they are illegal, and
+ (3) their illegality does not depend upon any judgment of the
Privy Council.
Similar objection is taken to any observance of All Souls' Day
or of the festival of Corpus Christi which implies the "Romish"
doctrine concerning purgatory or transubstantiation.
But while it is quite true that the number of churches in which
these extremes are practised is small, it is important to
remember that private oratories,, communities, and sisterhoods,
which last commonly follow forms of devotion and ritual which
cannot externally be distinguished from those prevailing in the
Catholic Church were not in any way touched by these
investigations of the commissioners. It is in such strongholds
that the ritualistic spirit is nurtured and propagated, and
there is as yet no sign that the feeling which animated this
revival of the religious life is less earnest than of yore.
Again everything seems to point to the conclusion that if
extreme practices have not spread more widely this is due less
to any distaste for such practices in themselves than to a
shrinking from the unpleasantness engendered by open conflict
with ecclesiastical authority. Where comparative impunity has
been secured, as for example by the ambiguity of the Ornaments
Rubric, a notable and increasing proportion of the clergy have
advanced to the very limits of what was likely to be tolerated
in the way of ritualistic development. It has been stated by
Archbishop Davidson that before 1850 the use of vestments in a
public church was known hardly anywhere. In 1901 carefully
compiled statistics showed that Eucharistic vestments of some
kind (other than the stole authorized by long tradition) were
used in no less than 1526 churches of the provinces of York and
Canterbury, that is about twelve per cent of the whole; and the
number has increased since. A slighter but not altogether
contemptible indication of the drift of opinion when unchecked
by authority is to be found in the familiar "Roman collar". Less
than fifty years ago, at the time of the "Roman aggression" it
was regarded in England as the distinctive feature of the dress
of a Catholic priest, an article which by its very name
manifested its proper usage. Not long afterwards it was
gradually adopted by certain High Church clergymen of an extreme
type. At the present day it is the rule rather than the
exception among English ecclesiastics of all shades of opinion,
not excepting even the Nonconformists.
With regard to the present position and principles of the
Ritualists we shall probably do well with Monsignor R. H. Benson
(Non-Catholic Denominations, pp. 29-58) to recognize a
distinction between two separate schools of thought, the
moderate and the extreme. On the one hand all the members of
this party seem to agree in recognizing the need of some more
immediate court of appeal to settle disputed questions of dogma
and ritual than can be afforded by the "Primitive Church" which
the early Tractarians were content to invoke in their
difficulties. On the other hand while both sections of the
Ritualists are in search of a "Living Voice" to guide them, or
at any rate of some substitute for that Living Voice, they have
come to supply the need in two quite different ways. To the
moderate Ritualists it has seemed sufficient to look back to the
Book of Common Prayer. This, it is urged, was drawn up in full
view of the situation created by "Roman abuses", and though it
was not intended to be a complete and final guide in every
detail of doctrine and discipline, the fact that it was
originally issued to men already trained in Catholic principles,
justifies us in supplying deficiencies by setting a Catholic
interpretation upon all doubtful points and omissions. The
Ritualist of this school, who of course firmly believes in the
continuity of his Church with the Church of England before the
Reformation, thinks it his duty to "behave and teach as a Marian
priest, conforming under Elizabeth, would have behaved and
taught when the Prayer Book was first put into his hands: he
must supply the lacunoe and carry out the imperfect directions
in as 'Catholic' a manner as possible" (Benson, op. cit., p.
32). Thus interpreted, the Prayer Book supplies a standard by
which the rulings of bishops and judicial committees may be
measured, and, if necessary, set aside; for the bishops
themselves are no less bound by the Prayer Book than are the
rest of the clergy, and no command of a bishop need be obeyed if
it transgress the directions of this higher written authority.
The objections to which this solution of the difficulty is open
must be sufficiently obvious. Clearly the text of this written
authority itself needs interpretation and it must seem to the
unprejudiced mind that upon contested points the interpretation
of the bishops and other officials of the Establishment is not
only better authorized than that of the individual Ritualist,
but that in almost every case the interpretation of the latter
in view of the Articles, canons, homilies, and other official
utterances is strained and unnatural. Moreover there is the
undeniable fact of desuetude. To appeal to such an ordinance as
the "Ornaments Rubric" as evidently binding, after it has been
in practice neglected by all orders of the Church for nearly
three hundred years, is contrary to all ecclesiastical as well
as civil presumptions in matters of external observance.
The extreme party among the Ritualists, though they undoubtedly
go beyond their more moderate brethren in their sympathy with
Catholic practices and also in a very definitely formulated wish
for "Reunion" (see UNION OF CHRISTENDOM), do not greatly differ
from them in matters of doctrine. Many adopt such devotions as
the rosary and benediction, some imitate Catholic practice so
far as to recite the Canon of the Mass in Latin, a few profess
even to hold the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and to
receive (of course with exception of the necessity of external
communion with Rome) all doctrines defined and taught by him.
But the more fundamental difference which divides the Ritualists
into two classes is probably to be found in their varying
conceptions of the authority to which they profess allegiance.
Giving up the appeal to the Prayer Book as a final rule, the
extreme party find a substitute for the Living Voice in the
consensus of the Churches which now make up Catholic Christendom
-- that is practically speaking in the agreement of Canterbury,
Rome, and Moscow -- if Moscow may be taken as the representative
of a number of eastern communions which do not in doctrinal
matters differ greatly from one another. Where these bodies are
agreed either explicitly or by silence, there, according to the
theory of this advanced school, is the revealed faith of
Christendom; where these bodies differ among themselves, there
we have matters of private opinion which do not necessarily
command the assent of the individual.
It is difficult perhaps for anyone who has not been brought up
in a High Church atmosphere to understand how such a principle
can be applied, and how Ritualists can profess to distinguish
between beliefs which are de fide and those which are merely
speculative. To the outsider it would seem that the Chinch of
Canterbury has quite clearly rejected such doctrines as the Real
Presence, the invocation of saints, and the sacrificial
character of the Eucharist. But the Ritualist has all his life
been taught to interpret the Thirty-Nine Articles in a
"Catholic" sense. When the Articles say that transubstantiation
is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, he is satisfied to
believe that some misconception of transubstantiation was
condemned, not the doctrine as defined a little later by the
Council of Trent. When the Articles speak of "the sacrifices of
Masses -- for the quick and the dead" as "blasphemous fables and
dangerous deceits", he understands that this repudiation was
only directed against certain popular "Romish errors" about the
multiplication of the effects of such Masses, not against the
idea of a propitiatory sacrifice in itself. Again the statement
that "the Romish doctrine concerning . . . Invocation of Saints
is a fond thing vainly invented", for him amounts to no more
than a rejection of certain abuses of extreme romanizers who
went perilously near to idolatry. In this way the Church of
England is exonerated from the apparent repudiation of these
Catholic beliefs, and the presumption stands that she accepts
all Catholic doctrine which she does not explicitly reject.
Hence as Rome and Moscow and Canterbury (in the manner just
explained) profess the three beliefs above specified, such
beliefs are to be regarded as part of the revealed faith of
Christendom. On the other hand such points as papal
infallibility, indulgences, and the procession of the Holy
Ghost, which are admittedly rejected by one or more of the three
great branches of the Catholic Church, have not the authority of
the Living Voice behind them. They may be true, but it cannot be
shown that they form part of the Revelation, the acceptance of
which is obligatory upon all good Christians.
With this fundamental view are connected many other of the
strange anomalies in the modern Ritualist position. To begin
with, those who so think, feel bound to no particular reverence
for the Church of their baptism or for the bishops that
represent her. By her negative attitude to so many points of
Catholic doctrine she has paltered with the truth, She has by
God's Providence retained the bare essentials of Catholicity and
preserved the canonical succession of her bishops. Hence English
Catholics are bound to be in communion with her and to receive
the sacraments from her ministers, but they are free to
criticize and up to a certain point to disobey. On the other
hand the Ritualist believes that each Anglican bishop possesses
jurisdiction, and that this jurisdiction particularly in the
matter of confessions, is conferred upon every clergyman in
virtue of his ordination. Further the same jurisdiction inherent
in the canonically appointed bishop of the diocese requires that
English Catholics should be in communion with him, and renders
it gravely sinful for them to hear Mass in the churches of the
"Italian Mission" -- so the Ritualist is prone to designate the
Churches professing obedience to Rome. This participation in
alien services is a schismatical act in England, while on the
other hand on the Continent, an "English Catholic" is bound to
respect the jurisdiction of the local ordinary by hearing Mass
according to the Roman Rite, and it becomes an equally
schismatical act to attend the services of any English Church.
The weak points in this theory of the extreme Ritualist party do
not need insisting upon. Apart from the difficulty of
reconciling this view of the supposed "Catholic" teaching of the
Established Church with the hard facts of history and with the
wording of the Articles, apart also from the circumstance that
nothing was ever heard of any such theory until about
twenty-five years ago, there is a logical contradiction about
the whole assumption which it seems impossible to evade. The
most fundamental doctrine of all in this system (for all the
other beliefs depend upon it) is precisely the principle that
the Living Voice is constituted by the consensus of the
Churches, but this is itself a doctrine which Rome and Moscow
explicitly reject and which the Church of England at best
professes only negatively and imperfectly. Therefore by the very
test which the Ritualists themselves invoke, this principle
falls to the round or at any rate becomes a matter of opinion
which binds no man in conscience.
The real strength of Ritualism and the secret of the steady
advance, which even in its extreme forms it still continues to
make, lies in its sacramental doctrine and in the true devotion
and self-sacrifice which in so many cases follow as a
consequence from this more spiritual teaching. The revival of
the celibate and ascetic ideal, more particularly in the
communities of men and women living under religious vows and
consecrated to prayer and works of charity, tends strongly in
the same direction. It is the Ritualist clergy who more than any
other body in the English Church have thrown themselves heart
and soul into the effort to spiritualize the lives of the poor
in the slums and to introduce a higher standard into the
missionary work among the heathen. Whatever there may be of
affectation and artificiality in the logical position of the
Ritualists, the entire sincerity, the real self-denial, and the
apostolic spirit of a large proportion of both the clergy and
laity belonging to this party form the greatest asset of which
Anglicanism now disposes. (For those aspects of Ritualism which
touch upon Anglican Orders and Reunion, see ANGLICAN ORDERS and
UNION OF CHRISTENDOM.)
For a concise Catholic view of Ritualism at the present day,
more particularly in its relations to the other parties in the
Church of England, see BENSON, Non-Catholic Denominations
(London, 1910). An excellent historical sketch of the movement
may be found in THUREAU-DANGIN, La renaissance catholique en
Angleterre au XIX ^e siecle (Paris, 1901-8), especially in the
third volume. The most important Anglican account is probably
WARRE-CORNISH, History of the English Church in the Nineteenth
Century (London, 1910), especially Part II; a good summary is
also provided by HOLLAND in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge (New York, 1910), s. v. Ritualism.
The best materials for the history of the movement may be found
in the Blue Books issued by the various royal commissions more
especially the Report and the four accompanying volumes of
minutes of evidence printed for the royal commission on
ecclesiastical discipline in 1906. The letters and other
documents published in such complete biographies as those of
Pusey, Bishop S. Wilberforce, Archbishop Tait, Bishop Wilkinson,
Archbishop Benson, Lord Shaftesbury, Charles Lowder, and others,
are also very useful. See also SPENCER JONES, England and the
Holy See London, 1902); MALLOCK, Doctrine and Doctrinal
Disruption (London, 1908); MACCOLL, The Royal Commission and the
Ornaments Rubric (London, 1906); MOYES, Aspects of Anglicanism
(London, 1906); DOLLING, Ten Years in a Portsmouth Slum (London,
1898); MACCOLL, Lawlessness, Sacerdotalism and Ritualism
(London, 1875); ROSCOE, The Bishop of Lincoln's Case (London,
1891); SANDAY, The Catholic Movement and the Archbishop's
Decision (London, 1899); TOMILSON, Historical Grounds of the
Lambeth Judgment (London, 1891), and in general The Reunion
Magazine and the now extinct Church Review.
HERBERT THURSTON.
Luke Rivington
Luke Rivington
Born in London, May, 1838; died in London, 30 May, 1899; fourth
son of Francis Rivington, a well-known London publisher. He was
educated at Highgate Grammar School and Magdalen College,
Oxford. After his ordination as an Anglican clergyman in 1862,
he became curate of St. Clement's, Oxford, leaving there in 1867
for All Saint's, Margaret Street, London, where he attracted
attention as a preacher. Failing in his efforts to found a
religious community at Stoke, Staffordshire, he joined the
Cowley Fathers and became superior of their house in Bombay.
Becoming unsettled in his religious convictions he visited Rome,
where in 1888 he was received into the Church. His ordination to
the priesthood took place on 21 Sept., 1889. He returned to
England and settled in Bayswater, not undertaking any parochial
work, but devoting himself to preaching, hearing confessions,
and writing controversial works. The chief of these were
"Authority; or a plain reason for joint the Church of Rome"
(1888); "Dust" a letter to the Rev. C. Gore on his book "Roman
Catholic Claims" (1888); "Dependence; or the insecurity of the
Anglican Position" (1889) "The Primitive Church and the See of
Peter" (1894); "Anglican Fallacies; or Lord Halifax on Reunion"
(1895); "Rome and England or Ecclesiastical Continuity" (1897);
"The Roman Primacy A.D. 430-51" (1899) which was practically a
new edition of "The Primitive Church and the See of Peter". He
also wrote several pamphlets and brought out a new edition of
Bishop Milner's "End of Religious Controversy". This was for the
Catholic Truth Society of which he was long a member of the
committee, and a prominent figure at the annual conferences so
successfully organized by the society. His pamphlets include
"Primitive and Roman" (1894) a reply to the notice of his book
"The Primitive Church" in the "Church Quarterly Review"; "The
Conversion of Cardinal Newman" (1896) and "Tekel" (1897) in
which he criticized the reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury
and York to Pope Leo XIII after the condemnation of Anglican
Orders. In 1897 the pope conferred on him an honorary doctorate
in divinity. During his latter years he lived near St. James
church, Spanish Place, devoting himself to his literary work and
the instruction of inquirers in the Catholic Faith.
The Tablet (3 and 10 June, 1899); Catholic Book Notes (15 June,
1899); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Cath.; Annual Register (London,
1899).
EDWIN BURTON
Jose Mercado Rizal
Jose Mercado Rizal
Filipino hero, physician, poet, novelist, and sculptor; b. at
Calamba, Province of La Laguna, Luzon, 19 June, 1861; d. at
Manila, 30 December, 1896. On his father's side he was descended
from Lam-co, who came from China to settle in the Philippines in
the latter part of the seventeenth century. His mother was of
Filipino-Chinese-Spanish origin. Rizal studied at the Jesuit
College of the Ateneo, Manila, where he received the degree of
Bachelor of Arts with highest honours before he had completed
his sixteenth year. He continued his studies in Manila for four
years and then proceeded to Spain, where he devoted himself to
philosophy, literature, and medicine, with ophthalmology as a
specialty. In Madrid he became a Freemason, and thus became
associated with men like Zorilla, Sagasta, Castelar, and
Balaguer, prominent in Spanish politics. Here and in France he
began to imbibe the political ideas, which later cost him his
life. In Germany he was enrolled as a law student in the
University of Heidelburg and became acquainted with Virchow and
Blumentritt. In Berlin was published his novel "Noli me tangere"
(1886) characterized, perhaps too extravagantly, by W.D. Howells
as "a great novel" written by one "born with a gift so far
beyond that of any or all of the authors of our roaring literary
successes." Several editions of the work were published in
Manila and Spain. There is a French translation ("Bibliotheque
sociologique", num 25, Paris, 1899), and two abbreviated English
translations of little value: "An Eagle's Flight" (New York,
1900) and "Friars and Filipinos" (New York, 1902). The book
satirizes the friars in the Philippines as well as the
Filipinos. Rizal's animosity to the friars was largely of
domestic origin. The friars were the landlords of a large
hacienda occupied by his father; there was a vexatious
litigation, and a few years later, by Weyler's order, soldiers
destroyed the buildings on the land, and various members of the
family were exiled to other parts of the Islands.
Rizal returned to the Philippines in 1887. After a stay of about
six months he set out again for Europe, passing through Japan
and the United States. In London he prepared his annotated
edition of Morga's "Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas" which he
completed in Paris (1890). In Belgium he published (Ghent, 1891;
Manila, 1900) "El Filibusterismo", a sequel to "Noli me
tangere". Its animus may be judged from its dedication to three
Filipino priests who were executed for complicity in the Cavite
outbreak of 1872. In 1891 he arrived in Hong Kong, where he
practised medicine. The following year he came to Manila, but
five days before his arrival a case was filed against him for
"anti-religious and anti-patriotic propaganda". On 7 July the
governor-general ordered Rizal's deportation to Mindanao. The
reasons given were the finding in his baggage of leaflets,
"satirizing the friars and tending to de-catholicize and so
de-nationalize the people"; and the "publication of 'El
Filibusterismo' dedicated to the memory of three
traitors_condemned and executed by competent authority_and whom
he hails as martyrs". Rizal spent four years in peaceful exile
in Dapitan, Mindanao, when he volunteered his services to the
governor to go to Cuba as a surgeon in the Spanish Army. The
offer was accepted. When he arrived in Spain, he was arrested
and brought back to Manila, where he was charged with founding
unlawful associations and promoting rebellion, and sentenced to
be shot.
Rizal had given up the practice of his religion long years
before. But now he gladly welcomed the ministrations of the
Jesuit Fathers, his former professors, and he wrote a retraction
of his errors and of Masonry in particular. On the morning of
his execution he assisted at two Masses with great fervour,
received Holy Communion and was married to an Irish half-caste
girl from Hong-King with whom he had cohabited in Dapitan.
Almost the last words he spoke were to the Jesuit who
accompanied him: "My great pride, Father, has brought me here."
30 December, the day of his execution, has been made a national
holiday by the American Government and $50,000 appropriated for
a monument to his memory; a new province, adjacent to Manila, is
called Rizal; the two centavo postage stamp and two peso
bill_the denominations in most common use_bear his picture.
Whether he was unjustly executed or not, is disputed; his plea
in his own defense is undoubtedly a strong one (cf. Retata). The
year of his death was a year of great uprising in the Islands
and feeling ran high. Whatever may be said about his sentence,
its fulfillment was a political mistake. Rizal, it is said, did
not favour separation from Spain, nor the expulsion of the
friars. Nor did he wish to accomplish his ends_reforms in the
Government_by revolutionary methods, but by the education of his
countrymen and their formation to habits of industry.
Besides the works mentioned above, Rizal wrote a number of poems
and essays in Spanish of literacy merit, some translations and
short papers in German, French, English, and in his native
dialect, Tagalog. A complete list of his writings is given in
Retana, "Vida y escritos del Dr. Rizal" (Madrid, 1907).
CRAIG, The Story of Jose Rizal (Manila, 1909); El Dr. Rizal y la
obra in La Juventad (Barcelona, Jan., Feb., 1897); PI, La muerte
cristiana del Dr. Rizal (Manila, 1910); CRAIG, Los errores de
Retana (Manila, 1910.)
PHILIP M. FINEGAN
Andrea Della Robbia
Andrea della Robbia
Nephew, pupil, assistant, and sharer of Luca's secrets, b. at
Florence, 1431; d. 1528. It is often difficult to distinguish
between his works and Luca's. His, undoubtedly, are the
medallions of infants for the Foundling Hospital, Florence, and
the noble Annunciation over the inner entrance; the Meeting of
S. Francis and S. Dominic in the loggia of S. Paolo; the
charming Madonna of the Architects, the Virgin adoring the
Divine Child in the Crib and other pieces in the Bargello; the
fine St. Francis at Assisi; the Madonna della Quercia at
Viterbo; the high altar (marble) of S. Maria delle Grazie at
Arezzo; the rich and variegated decorations of the vaulted
ceiling, porch of Pistoia Cathedral, and many other works.
Andrea had several sons, of whom Giovanni Girolamo, Luca the
Younger, and Ambrogio are the best known. Giovanni executed the
famous reliefs for the Ospendale del Ceppo, Pistoia; and
Girolamo worked much in France, where he died. The Della Robbia
school gradually lost power and inspiration, the later works
being often overcrowded with figures and full of conflicting
colour.
See bibl. Of ROBBIA, LUCA DI SIMONE DELLA.
M.L. HANDLEY
Lucia di Simone Robbia
Lucia di Simone Robbia
Sculptor, b. at Florence, 1400; d. 1481. He is believed to have
studied design with a goldsmith, and then to have worked in
marble and bronze under Ghiberti. He was early invited to
execute sculptures for the Cathedral of S. Maria del Fiore and
the Campanile. The latter_representing Philosophy, Arithmetic,
Grammar, Orpheus, and Tubalcain (1437)? are still somewhat
Gothic in character. For the organ-gallery of the cathedral he
made the famous panels of the Cantorie, groups of boys singing
and playing upon musical instruments (1431-8), now in the Museo
del Duomo. For the north sacristy he made a bronze door; figures
of angels bearing candles and a fine glazed earthenware relief
of Christ rising from the tomb over the entrance are also his
execution. Above the entrance to the southern sacristy he made
the Ascension almost entirely in his new ware. The medium was
not unknown, but by dint of experimenting he brought his
material to great perfection. He colours are brilliant, fresh,
and beautiful in quality, the blue especially being quite
inimitable. The stanniferous glaze, or enamel, contained various
minerals and was Luca's own secret; in the firing, it became
exceedingly hard, durable, and bright. Luca's design is
generally an architectural setting with a very few figures, or
half figures, and rich borders of fruits and flowers. He excels
in simplicity and loveliness of composition. His madonnas have
great charm, dignity, and grace. In the earlier productions
colour is used only for the background, for the stems and leaves
of lilies, and the eyes; an occasional touch of gold is added in
coronal or lettering. Later, Luca used colour more freely. The
Della Robbia earthenwares are so fresh and beautiful and so
decorative that even in Luca's time there were immediately in
great request. They are seen at their best in Florence. A few of
the principal ones are: the crucifix at S. Miniato and the
ceiling of the chapel in which it is found; the medallions of
the vault (centre, the Holy Ghost; corners, the Virtues) in the
chapel of Cardinal Jacopo of Portugal, also at S. Miniato; the
decorations of the Pazzi chapel at Sta. Croce; the armorial
bearings of the Arti at Or San Michele; the Madonna of the
Apple, and a number of equally fine reliefs. Of his works
outside Florence may be mentioned: the Madonna at Urbino; the
tabernacle at Impruneta, the vault angels of S. Giobbe, Venice
(sometimes said to be by the school only); medallions of Justice
and Temperance, Museum of Cluny, Paris; arms of Rene d'Anjou,
London, South Kensington Museum, and other works in Naples,
Sicily, and elsewhere. The admirable and much disputed group of
the Visitation at S. Giovanni Fuorcivitas, Pistoia, is
attributed both to Luca and Andrea.
BARBET DE JOUY, Les Della Robbia (Paris, 1855); MUeNTZ, Hist.
de;'Art pendant la Renaissance (Paris, 1895); REYMOND, Les Della
Robbia (Florence, 1897); CRUTWELL, Luca and Andrea Della Robbia
(London, 1902).
M.L. HANDLEY
St. Robert
St. Robert
Founder of the Abbey of Chaise-Dieu in Auvergne, b. at Aurilac,
Auvergne, about 1000; d. in Auvergne, 1067. On his father's side
he belonged to the family of the Counts of Aurilac, who had
given birth to St. Geraud. He studied at Brioude near the
basilica of St-Julien, in a school open to the nobility of
Auvergne by the canons of that city. Having entered their
community, and being ordained priest, Robert distinguished
himself by his piety, charity, apostolic zeal, eloquent
discourses, and the gift of miracles. For about forty years he
remained at Cluny in order to live under the rule of his
compatriot saint, Abbe Odilo. Brought back by force to Brioude,
he started anew for Rome in order to consult the pope on his
project. Benedict IX encouraged him to retire with two
companions to the wooded plateau south-east of Auvergne. Here he
built a hermitage under the name of Chaise-Dieu (Casa Dei). The
renown of his virtues having brought him numerous disciples, he
was obliged to build a monastery, which he placed under the rule
of Saint Benedict (1050). Leo IX erected the Abbey of
Chaise-Dieu, which became one of the most flourishing in
Christendom. At the death of Robert it numbered 300 monks and
had sent multitudes all though the centre of France. Robert also
founded a community of women at Lavadieu near Brioude. Through
the elevation of Pierre Roger, monk of Chaise-Dieu, to the
sovereign pontificate, under the name of Clement VI, the abbey
reached the height of its glory. The body of Saint Robert,
preserved therein, was burned by the Huguenots during the
religious wars. His work was destroyed by the French Revolution,
but there remain for the admiration of tourists, the vast
church, cloister, tomb of Clement VI, and Clementine Tower. The
feast-day of St. Robert is 24 April.
A. FOURNET
Robert of Arbrissel
Robert of Arbrissel
Itinerant preacher, founder of Fontevrault, b. c. 1047 at
Arbrissel (now Arbressec) near Rhetiers, Brittany; d. at Orsan,
probably 1117. Robert studied in Paris during the pontificate of
Gregory VII, perhaps under Anselm of Laon and later displayed
considerable theological knowledge. The date and place of his
ordination are unknown. In 1089 he was recalled to his native
Diocese of Rennes by Bishop Sylvester de la Guerche, who desired
to reform his flock. As archpriest, Robert devoted himself to
the suppression of simony, lay investiture, clerical
concubinage, irregular marriages, and to the healing of feuds.
This reforming zeal aroused such enmity that upon Sylvester's
death in 1093, Robert was compelled to leave the diocese. He
went to Angers and there commenced ascetic practices which he
continued throughout his life. In 1095 he became a hermit in the
forest of Craon (s.w. of Laval), living a life of severest
penance in the company of Bernard, afterwards founder of the
Congregation of Tiron, Vitalis, founder of Savigny, and others
of considerable note. His piety, eloquence, and strong
personality attracted many followers, for whom in 1096 he
founded the monastery of Canons Regular of La Roe, becoming
himself the first abbot. In the same year Urban II summoned him
to Angers and appointed him a "preacher (seminiverbus, cf. Acts
17, 18) second only to himself with orders to travel everywhere
in the performance of this duty" (Vita Baldrici).
There is no evidence that Robert assisted Urban to preach the
Crusade, for his theme was the abandonment of the world and
especially poverty. Living in the utmost destitution, he
addressed himself to the poor and would have his followers known
only as the "poor of Christ", while the ideal he put forward was
"In nakedness to follow Christ naked upon the Cross". His
eloquence, heightened by his strikingly ascetic appearance, drew
crowds everywhere. Those who desired to embrace the monastic
state under his leadership he sent to La Roe, but the Canons
objected to the number and diversity of the postulants, and
between 1097 and 1100 Robert formally resigned his abbacy, and
founded Fontevrault (q.v.). His disciples were of every age and
condition, including even lepers and converted prostitutes.
Robert continued his missionary journeys over the whole of
Western France till the end of his life, but little is known of
this period. At the Council of Poitiers, Nov., 1100, he
supported the papal legates in excommunicating Philip of France
on account of his lawless union with Bertrade de Montfort; in
1110 he attended the Council of Nantes. Knowledge of his
approaching death caused him to take steps to ensure the
permanence of his foundation at Fontevrault. He imposed a vow of
stability on his monks and summoned a Chapter (September, 1116)
to settle the form of government. From Hautebruyere a priory
founded by the penitent Bertrade, he went to Orsan, another
priory of Fontevrault, where he died. The "Vita Andreae" gives a
detailed account of his last year of life.
Robert was never canonized. The accusation made against him by
Geoffrey of Vendome of extreme indiscretion in his choice of
exceptional ascetic practices (see P.L., CLVII, 182) was the
source of much controversy during the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. Other evidence of eccentric actions on Robert's part
and scandals among his mixed followers may have helped to give
rise to these rumors. The Fontevrists did everything in their
power to discredit the attacks on their founder. The accusatory
letters of Marbodius of Rennes and Geoffrey of Vendome were
without sufficient cause declared to be forgeries and the MS.
Letter of Peter of Saumur was made away with, probably at the
instigation of Jeanne Baptiste de Bourbon, Abbess of
Fontevrault. This natural daughter of Henry IV applied to
Innocent X for the beatification of Robert, her request being
supported by Louis XIV and Henrietta of England. Both this
attempt and one made about the middle of the nineteenth century
failed, but Robert is usually given the title of "Blessed". The
original recension of the Rule of Fontevrault no longer exists;
the only surviving writing of Robert is his letter of
exhortation to Ermengarde of Brittany (ed. Petigny in "Bib. de
l'ecole des Chartes", 1854, V, iii).
Acta SS., Feb., III, 593 sqq., contains two ancient lives by
BALDRIC of Dol and the monk ANDREW; PETIGNY, Robert d'Arbissel
et Geoffroi de Vendome in Bib. de l' ecole des Chartes; WALTER,
Ersten Wanderprediger Frankreichs, I (Leipzig, 1903), a modern
scientific book; IDEM, Excurs, II (1906); BOEHMER in
Theologische Literaturzeitung, XXIX, col. 330, 396, a hostile
review.
RAYMUND WEBSTER
Robert of Courcon
Robert of Courc,on
(DE CURSONE, DE CURSIM, CURSUS, ETC.).
Cardinal, born at Kedleston, England; died at Damietta, 1218.
After having studied at Oxford, Paris, and Rome, he became in
1211 Chancellor of the University of Paris; in 1212 he was made
Cardinal of St. Stephen on the Cedilla Hill; in 1213 he was
appointed legate a latere to preach the crusade, and in 1215 was
placed at the head of a commission to inquire into the errors
prevalent at the University of Paris. He took an active part in
the campaign against heresy in France, and accompanied the army
of the Crusaders into Egypt as legate of Honorius III. He died
during the siege of Damietta. He is the author of several works,
including a "Summa: devoted to questions of canon law and ethics
and dealing at length with the question of usury. His
interference in the affairs of the University of Paris, in the
midst of the confusion arising from the introduction of the
Arabian translations of Aristotle, resulted in the proscription
(1215) of the metaphysical as well as the physical treatises of
the Stagyrita, together with the summaries thereof (Summae de
esidem). At the same time, his rescript (Denifle, "Chartul.
Univ. Paris", I, 78) renews the condemnation of the Pantheists,
David of Dinant, and Amaury of Bene, but permits the use, as
texts, of Aristotle's "Ethics" and logical treatises. The
rescript also contains several enactments relating to academic
discipline.
DENIFLE, Chartul. Univ. Paris, I (Paris, 1889), 72, 78; DE WULF,
Hist. of Medieval Phil., tr. COFFEY (New York, 1909), 252.
WILLIAM TURNER
Robert of Geneva
Robert of Geneva
Antipope under the name of Clement VII, b. at Geneva, 1342; d.
at Avignon, 16 Sept., 1394. He was the son of Count Amadeus III.
Appointed prothonotary Apostolic in 1359, he became Bishop of
Therouanne in 1361, Archbishop of Cambrai in 1368, and cardinal
30 May, 1371. As papal legate in Upper Italy (1376-78), in order
to put down a rebellion in the Pontifical States, he is dais to
have authorized the massacre of 4000 persons at Cesena, and was
consequently called "the executioner of Cesena". Elected to the
papacy at Fondi, 20 Sept. 1378, by the French cardinals in
opposition to Urban VI, he was the first antipope of the Great
Schism. France, Scotland, Castile, Aragon, Navarre, Portugal,
Savoy, and some minor German states, Denmark, and Norway
acknowledged his authority. Unable to maintain himself in Italy,
he took up his residence at Avignon, where he became dependent
on the French Court. He created excellent cardinals, but donated
the larger part of the Pontifical States to Louis II of Anjou,
resorted to simony and extortion to meet the financial needs of
his court, and seems never to have sincerely desired the
termination of the Schism.
BALUZE, Vitae Paparum Avenionensium, I (Paris, 1693, 486 sqq.;
SALEMBIER, The Great Schism of the West, (tr. New York, 1907),
passim.
N.A. TURNER
Robert of Jumieges
Robert of Jumieges
Archbishop of Canterbury (1051-2). Robert Champart was a Norman
monk of St. Ouen at Rouen and was prior of that house in 1037 he
was elected Abbot of Jumieges. As abbot he began to build the
fine Norman abbey-church, and at this time he was able to be of
service to St. Edward the Confessor, then an exile. When Edward
returned to England as king in 1043 Robert accompanied him and
was made Bishop of London in 1044. In this capacity he became
the head of the Norman party in opposition to the Saxon party
under Godwin, and exerted supreme influence over the king. In
1051 Robert was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury and went to
Rome for his pall, but the appointment was very unpopular among
the English clergy who resented the intrusion of a foreigner
into the metropolitan see. For a time he was successful in
opposing Godwin even to the extent of instigating his exile, but
when Godwin returned in 1052 Robert fled to Rome and was
outlawed by the Wirenagemot. The pope reinstated him in his see,
but he could not regain possession of it, and William of
Normandy made his continued exclusion one of his pretexts for
invading England. The last years of his life were spent at
Jumieges, but the precise date of his death has not been
ascertained, though Robert de Torigni states it as 26 May, 1055.
The valuable liturgical MS. Of the "Missal of Robert of
Jumieges", now at Rouen, was given by him, when Bishop of London
to the abbey at Jumieges.
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. THORPE, r.s., (London, 1861); Vita
Eadwardi in LUARD, Lives of Edward the Confessor, R. S. (London,
1858); HOOK, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury (London,
1865-75); HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog.; SEARLE, Anglo-Saxon Bishops,
Nobles, and Kings (Cambridge, 1899); Obituary of the Abbey of
Jumieges in Receuil de Historiens, XXIII (Rouen, 1872), 419.
EDWIN BURTON
Robert of Luzarches
Robert of Luzarches
(LUS).
Born at Luzarches near Pontoise towards the end of the twelfth
century; is said to have been summoned to Paris by Philip
Augustus who employed him in beautifying the city, and to have
had a share in the work on Notre Dame. The real fame of this
master is, however, connected with the cathedral of Notre Dame
in Amiens. The old cathedral was destroyed by fire in 1218 and
Bishop Evrard de Fouilloy had it rebuilt in Gothic style. An
inscription made in 1288 in the "labyrinth" of the floor (now
removed) testified that the building had begun in 1220, and
names "Robert, called of Luzarches", as the architect, and as
his successors, Thomas de Cormont and the latter's son. The work
was completed in later centuries. Viollet-le-Duc sees a fact of
great significance in the employment of the layman, Robert; but
it is not accurate that in Romanesque times the architects were
always bishops, priests, or monks; or, on the other hand, that
since the Gothic period the Church relinquished the direction of
church-building so entirely as is now believed. Robert was not
long employed on the cathedral. Under the successor of Bishop
Evrard, who apparently died in 1222, Cormont appears as the
architect. Before 1240 Bishop Bernard put a choir window in the
provisionally completed cathedral. An intended alteration of the
original plan was not used in the finished building, so that the
whole remains a splendid moment to Robert. In his day it was
already called the "Gothic Parthenon". Gracefully built and
better lighted than several of the large churches of France,
there is yet, especially about the fac,ade, a majestic severity.
It is more spacious than Notre Dame in Paris and considerably
larger than the cathedral of Reims. The former is effective
through its quiet simplicity, which amounts to austerity; the
latter is less rich in the modelling of choir, windows, and
triforium. But Robert's creation became a standard far and near,
through France and beyond, on account of the successful manner
in which weight and strength are counterbalanced and of the
consistently Gothic style. The design presents a middle aisle
and two side aisles, though the choir has five aisles and the
transept has the width of seven aisles. The choir is flanked by
seven chapels; that in the centre (the Lady chapel) projecting
beyond the others in French style. The majestic and harmonious
interior is surpassed in beauty by few cathedrals. The nave is
about 470 ft. in length, 164 ft. in breadth (213 ft. in the
transept), and 141 ft. in height. A poet writes aptly, "Fabrica
nil demi patitur nec susinet addi" (It is not possible to add
anything to or to take anything from it).
G. GIETMANN
Robert of Melun
Robert of Melun
(DE MELDUNO; MELIDENSIS; MEIDUNUS).
An English philosopher and theologian, b. in England abut 1100;
d. at Hereford, 1167. He gets his surname from Melun, near
Paris, where after having studied under Hugh of St. Victor and
probably Abelard, he taught philosophy and theology. Among his
pupils were John of Salisbury and Thomas `a Beckett. Through the
influence of the latter he was made Bishop of Hereford in 1163.
Judging from the tributes paid him by John of Salisbury in the
"Metalogicus" (P.L. CXCIX), Robert must have enjoyed great
renown as a teacher. On the question of Universals, which
agitated the schools in those days, he opposed the nominalism of
Roscelin and seemed to favour a doctrine of moderate realism.
His principal work, "Summa Theologiae" or "Summa Sententiarum"
is still in MS,. Except portions which have been published by Du
Boulay in his "Historia Univ. Paris", ii, 585 sqq. He also wrote
"Queaestiones de Epistolis Pauli", both of which are kept in the
Bibliotheque Nationale. Those who have examined the "Summa"
pronounce it to be of great value in tracing the history of
scholastic doctrines.
Materials for the History of Thomas Beckett in Rer. Britt, SS.
contains valuable data; DE WULF, Hist. of Medieval Phil., tr.
COFFEY (New York, 1909), 210; HAUREAU, Hist. de la phil. Scol.
(Paris, 1872), 490 sqq.
G. GIETMANN
St. Robert of Molesme
St. Robert of Molesme
Born about the year 1029, at Champagne, France, of noble parents
who bore the names of Thierry and Ermengarde; d. at Molesme, 17
April, 1111. When fifteen years of age, he commenced his
novitiate in the Abbey of Montier-la-Celle, or St.
Pierre-la-Celle, situated near Troyes, of which he became later
prior. In 1068 he succeeded Hunaut II as Abbot of St. Michael de
Tonnerre, in the Diocese of Langres. About this time a band of
seven anchorites who lived in the forest of Collan, in the same
diocese, sought to have Robert for their chief, but the monks,
despite their constant resistance to his authority, insisted on
keeping their abbot who enjoyed so great a reputation, and was
the ornament of their house. Their intrigues determined Robert
to resign his charge in 1071, and seek refuge in the monastery
of Montier-la-Celle. The same year he was placed over the priory
of St. Ayoul de Provins, which depended on Montier-la-Celle.
Meantime two of the hermits of Collan went to Rome and besought
Gregory VII to give them the prior of Provins for their
superior. The pope granted their request, and in 1074 Robert
initiated the hermits of Collan in the monastic life. As the
location at Collan was found unsuitable, Robert founded a
monastery at Molesme in the valley of Langres at the close of
1075. To Molesme as a guest came the distinguished canon and
doctor (ecolatre) of Reims, Bruno, who, in 1082, placed himself
under the direction of Robert, before founding the celebrated
order of the Chartreux. At this time the primitive discipline
was still in its full vigour, and the religious lived by the
labour of their hands. Soon, however, the monastery became
wealthy through a number of donations, and with wealth, despite
the vigilance of the abbot, came laxity of discipline. Robert
endeavoured to restore the primitive strictness, but the monks
showed so much resistance that he abdicated, and left the care
of his community to his prior, Alberic, who retired in 1093. In
the following year he returned with Robert to Molesme. On 29
Nov., 1095, Urban II confirmed the institute of Molesme. In 1098
Robert, still unable to reform his rebellious monks, obtained
from Hugues, Archbishop of Lyons and Legate of the Holy See,
authority to found a new order on new lines. Twenty-one
religious left Molesme and set out joyfully for a desert called
Citeaux in the Diocese of Chalons, and the Abbey of Citeaux
(q.v.) was founded 21 March, 1098.
Left to themselves, the monks of Molesme appealed to the pope,
and Robert was restored to Molesme, which thereafter became an
ardent centre of monastic life. Robert died 17 April, 1111, and
was buried with great pomp in the church of the abbey. Pope
Honorius III by Letters Apostolic in 1222 authorized his
veneration in the church of Molesme, and soon after the
veneration of St. Robert was extended to the whole Church by a
pontifical Decree. The feast was fixed at first on 17 April, but
later it was transferred to 29 April. The Abbey of Molesme
existed up to the French Revolution. The remains of the holy
founder are preserved in the parish church.
Vita S. Roberti, Abbatis Molismensis, auctore monacho molismensi
sub Adone, abb. saec. XII; Exordium Cisterciensis Cenobii;
CUIGNARD, Les monuments primitifs de la Regle Cistercienne
(Dijon, 1878); WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY, Bk. I, De rebus gestis
Anglorum, P.L., CLXXIX; LAURENT, Cart. de Molesme, Bk. I (Paris,
1907).
F.M. GILDAS
St. Robert of Newminster
St. Robert of Newminster
Born in the district of Craven, Yorkshire, probably at the
village of Gargrave; died 7 June, 1159. He studied at the
University of Paris, where he is said to have composed a
commentary on the Psalms; became parish priest at Gargrave, and
later a Benedictine at Whitby, from where, with the abbot's
permission, he joined the founders of the Cistercian monastery
of Fountains. About 1138 he headed the first colony sent out
from Fountains and established the Abbey of Newminster near the
castle of Ralph de Merlay, at Morpeth in Northumberland. During
his abbacy three colonies of monks were sent out; monasteries
were founded: Pipewell (1143), Roche (1147) and Sawley (1148).
Capgrave's life tells that an accusation of misconduct was
brought against him by his own monks and that he went abroad
(1147-48), to defend himself before St. Bernard, but doubt has
been cast upon the truth of his story, which may have arisen
from a desire of this story, which may have arisen from a desire
to associate the English saint personally with the greatest of
the Cistercians. His tomb in the church of Newminster became an
object of pilgrimage; his feast is kept on 7 June.
RAYMUND WEBSTER
Robert Pullus
Robert Pullus
(PULLEN, PULLAN, PULLY.)
Cardinal, English philosopher and theologian, of the twelfth
century, b. in England about 1080; d. 1147-50. He seems to have
studied in Paris in the first decades of the twelfth century. In
1153 he began to teach at Oxford, being among the first of the
celebrated teachers in the schools which were afterwards
organized into the University of Oxford. After the death of
Henry II he returned to Paris; thence he went to Rome, where he
was appointed cardinal and Chancellor of the Apostolic See. His
influence was always on the side of orthodoxy and against the
encroachments of the rationalistic tendency represented by
Abelard. This we know from the biography of St. Bernard written
by William of St. Thierry, and from his letters. Robert wrote a
compendium of theology, entitled "Sententiarum Theologicarum
Libri Octo", which, for a time, held its place in the school of
Western Europe as the official text book in theology. It was,
however, supplanted by the "Libri Sententiarum" of Peter the
Lombard, compared with whom Robert seems to have been more
inclined to strict interpretation of ecclesiastical tradition
than to yield to the growing demands of the dialectical method
in theology and philosophy. The Lombard, however, finally gained
recognition and decided the fate of scholastic theology in the
thirteenth century. Robert's "Summa" was first published by the
Benedictine Dom Mathoud (Paris, 1655). It is reprinted in Migne
(P.L., CLXXXVI, 639 sqq.).
HAUREAU, Hist. de la phil. scol., I (Paris, 1872), 483 sqq.
WILLIAM TURNER
St. John Roberts
St. John Roberts
First Prior of St. Gregory's, Douai (now Downside Abbey), b.
1575-6; martyred 10 December, 1610. He was the son of John and
Anna Roberts of Trawsfynydd, Merionethshire, N. Wales. He
matriculated at St. John's College, Oxford, in February, 1595-6,
but left after two years without taking a degree and entered as
a law student at one of the Inns of Court. In 1598 he travelled
on the continent and in Paris, through the influence of a
Catholic fellow- countryman, was converted. By the advice of
John Cecil, an English priest who afterwards became a Government
spy, he decided to enter the English College at Valladolid,
where he was admitted 18 October, 1598. The following year,
however, he left the college for the Abbey of St. Benedict,
Valladolid; whence, after some months, he was sent to make his
novitiate in the great Abbey of St. Martin at Compostella where
he made his profession towards the end of 1600. His studies
completed he was ordained, and set out for England 26 December,
1602. Although observed by a Government spy, Roberts and his
companions succeeded in entering the country in April, 1603;
but, his arrival being known, he was arrested and banished on 13
May following. He reached Douai on 24 May and soon managed to
return to England where he laboured zealously among the
plague-stricken people in London. In 1604, while embarking for
Spain with four postulants, he was again arrested, but not being
recognized as a priest was soon released and banished, but
returned again at once. On 5 November, 1605, while Justice
Grange was searching the house of Mrs. Percy, first wife of
Thomas Percy, who was involved in the Gunpowder Plot, he found
Roberts there and arrested him. Though acquitted of any
complicity in the plot itself, Roberts was imprisoned in the
Gatehouse at Westminster for seven months and then exiled anew
in July, 1606.
This time he was absent for some fourteen months, nearly all of
which he spent at Douai where he founded a house for the English
Benedictine monks who had entered various Spanish monasteries.
This was the beginning of the monastery of St. Gregory at Douai
which still exists as Downside Abbey, near Bath, England. In
October, 1607, Roberts returned to England, was again arrested
in December and placed in the Gatehouse, from which he contrived
to escape after some months. He now lived for about a year in
London and was again taken some time before May, 1609, in which
month he was taken to Newgate and would have been executed but
for the intercession of de la Broderie, the French ambassador,
whose petition reduced the sentence to banishment. Roberts again
visited Spain and Douai, but returned to England within a year,
knowing that his death was certain if he were again captured.
This event took place on 2 December, 1610; the pursuivants
arriving just as he was concluding Mass, took him to Newgate in
his vestments. On 5 December he was tried and found guilty under
the Act forbidding priests to minister in England, and on 10
December was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn. The body of
Roberts was recovered and taken to St. Gregory's, Douai, but
disappeared during the French Revolution. Two fingers are still
preserved at Downside and Erdington Abbeys respectively and a
few minor relics exist. At Erdington also is a unique
contemporary engraving of the martyrdom which has been
reproduced in the "Downside Review" (XXIV, 286). The
introduction of the cause of beatification was approved by Leo
XIII in his Decree of 4 December, 1886.
[ Note: In 1970, John Roberts was canonized by Pope Paul VI as
one of the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales, whose joint
feastday is kept on 25 October.]
The earlier accounts given by CHALLONER, DOD (DODD), PLOWDEN,
and FOLEY are misleading, as they confound John Roberts the
Benedictine with an earlier priest of the same name. This has
been shown conclusively by CAMM, whose work is the best on the
subject. YEPES, Coronica general de la Orden de San Benito, IV
(Valladolid, 1613), folios 58-63; POLLEN, Acts of English
Martyrs (London, 1891), 143-70; CAMM, A Benedictine Martyr in
England, Being the Life . . . of Dom John Roberts, O.S.B.
(London, 1897); IDEM, The Martyrdom of V. John Roberts in
Downside Review, XXIV, 286; BISHOP, The Beginning of Douai
Convent and The First Prior of St. Gregory's in Downside Review,
XVI, 21; XXV, 52; FULLERTON, Life of Luisa de Carvajal (London,
1873).
G. ROGER HUDLESTON
James Burton Robertson
James Burton Robertson
Historian, b. in London 15 Nov., 1800; d. at Dublin 14 Feb.,
1877, son of Thomas Robertson, a landed proprietor in Grenada,
West Indies, where he spent his boyhood. In 1809 his mother
brought him to England, and placed him at St. Edmund's College,
Old Hall (1810), where he remained nine years. In 1819 he began
his legal studies, and in 1825 was called to the bar, but did
not practise. For a time he studied philosophy and theology in
France under the influence of his friends Lamennais and Gerbet.
In 1835 he published his translation of Frederick Schlegel's
"Philosophy of History", which passed through many editions.
From 1837 to 1854 he lived in Germany of Belgium. During this
time he translated Moehler. This work considerably influenced
some of the Oxford Tractarians. In 1855 Dr. Newman nominated
Robertson as professor of geography and modern history in the
Catholic University of Ireland. In this capacity he published
two series of lectures (1859 and 1864), as well as "Lectures on
Edmund Burke" (1869), and a translation of Dr. Hergenroether's
"Anti Janus" (1870) to which he prefixed a history of
Gallicanism. He also wrote a poem, "The Prophet Enoch" (1859),
and contributed several articles to the "Dublin Review". His
services to literature obtained for him a pension from the
Government in 1869, and the degree of Doctor of Philosophy from
Pius IX (1875). He is buried in Glasnevin cemetary.
Tablet (24 Feb., 1877); GILLOW in Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.; The
Edmundian, II, no. 8 (1895).
EDWIN BURTON
Ven. Christopher Robinson
Ven. Christopher Robinson
Born at Woodside, near Westward, Cumberland, date unknown;
executed at Carlisle, 19 Aug., 1598. He was admitted to the
English College at Reims in 1589, and was ordained priest and
sent on the mission in 1592. Two years later he was a witness of
the condemnation and execution of the venerable martyr John
Boste (q.v.) at Durham, and wrote a very graphic account of
this, which has been printed from a seventeenth-century
transcript in the first volume of the "Catholic Record Society's
Publications" (London, 1905), pp. 85-92. His labours seem to
have been mainly in Cumberland and Westmoreland; but nothing is
known about them. Eventually he was arrested and imprisoned at
Carlisle, where Bishop Robinson, who may have been a relative,
did his best to persuade him to save his life by conforming,
under 27 Eliz., c. 2, for being a priest and coming into the
realm, suffered the last penalty with such cheerful constancy
that his death was the occasion of many conversions.
JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT
William Callyhan Robinson
William Callyhan Robinson
Jurist and educator, b. 26 July, 1834, at Norwich, Conn.; d. 6
Nov., 1911, at Washington, D.C. After preparatory studies at
Norwich Academy, Williston Seminary, and Wesleyan University, he
entered Dartmouth College from which he was graduated in 1854.
He then entered the Theological Seminary of the Protestant
Episcopal Church, was graduated in 1857, and ordained to the
Episcopalian Ministry, in which he served first at Pittston, Pa.
(1857-8), and then at Scranton, Pa. (1859-62). He was received
into the Catholic Church in 1863, was admitted to the Bar in
1864, and was lecturer and professor in law at Yale University
(1869-95). For two years (1869-71) he was judge of the City
Court and later (1874-6) judge of the Court of Common Pleas at
New Haven, Conn. In 1874 also he served as member of the
Legislature. From Dartmouth College he received (1879) the
degree LL.D., and from Yale University the degree M.A. (1881).
He married 2 July, 1857, Anna Elizabeth Haviland and, 31 March,
1891, Ultima Marie Smith. His thorough knowledge of law made him
eminent as a teacher and enabled him to render important service
to the Church. In 1895 he was appointed professor in the
Catholic University of America, where he organized the School of
Social Sciences and remained as Dean of the School of Law until
his death. Besides articles contributed to various periodicals,
he wrote: "Life of E. B. Kelly" (1855); "Notes of Elementary
Law" (1876); "Elementary Law" (Boston, 1876); "Clavis Rerum"
(1883); "Law of Patents" (3 vols., Boston, 1890); "Forensic
Oratory" (Boston, 1893); "Elements of American Jurisprudence"
(Boston, 1900).
Catholic University Bulletin (Dec., 1911); Catholic Educational
Review (Dec., 1911).
E.A. PACE
Juan Tomas de Rocaberti
Juan Tomas de Rocaberti
Theologian, b. of a noble family at Perelada, in Catalina, c.
1624; d. at Madrid 13 June, 1699. Educated at Gerona he entered
the Dominican convent there, receiving the habit in 1640. His
success in theological studies at the convent of Valencia
secured for him the chair of theology in the university. In
1666he was chosen provincial of Aragon, and in 1670 the General
Chapter elected him general of the order. He became endeared to
all who came in contact with him. No one, perhaps, held him in
greater esteem than Clement X. The celebrated Dominican
Contenson dedicated to him his "Theologia mentis el cordis". He
obtained the canonization of Sts. Louis Bertrand and Rose of
Lima, the solemn beatification of Pius V, and the annual
celebration in the order of the feast of Bl. Albert the Great
and others. In 1676 he was appointed by Charles II first
Archbishop of Valencia and then governor of that province. In
1695 he was made inquisitor-general of Spain.
Rocaberti is best known as an active apologist of the papacy
against Gallicans and Protestants. His first work in the sense
was "De Romani poniticis auctoritate" (3 vols., Valentia,
1691-94). His most important work is the "Bibliotheca Maxima
Pontificia" (21 vols., Rome, 1697-00). In this monumental work
the author collected and published in alphabetical order, and in
their entirety, all the important works dealing with the primacy
of the Holy See from an orthodox point of view, beginning with
Abraham Bzovius and ending with Zacharias Boverius. An excellent
summary is given in Hurter's "Nomenclator".
QUETIF-ECHARD, Script. ord. Prad., II (Paris, 1721), 630,827;
TOURON, Hist. des hom. Ill. De l'ordre Dom., V (Paris, 1748),
714-26; HURTER, Nomenclator, II: Annee Dominicaine, XIII, 785.
H.J. SCHROEDER
Rocamadour
Rocamadour
Communal chief town of the canton of Gramat, district of
Gourdon, Department of Lot, in the Diocese of Cahors and the
ancient province of Quercy. This village by the wonderful beauty
of its situation merits the attention of artists and excites the
curiosity of archaeologists; but its reputation is due
especially to its celebrated sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin
which for centuries has attracted pilgrims from every country,
among them kings, bishops, and nobles.
A curious legend purported to explain the origin of this
pilgrimage has given rise to controversies between critical and
traditional schools, especially in recent times. According to
the latter, Rocamadour is indebted for its name to the founder
of the ancient sanctuary, St. Amadour, who was none other than
Zacheus of the Gospel, husband of St. Veronica, who wiped the
Saviour's face on the way to Calvary. Driven forth from
Palestine by persecution, Amadour and Veronica embarked in a
frail skiff and, guided by an angel, landed on the coast of
Aquitaine, where thy met Bishop St. Martial, another disciple of
Christ who was preaching the Gospel in the south-west of Gaul.
After journeying to Rome, where he witnessed the martydoms of
Sts. Peter and Paul, Amadour, having returned to France, on the
death of his spouse, withdrew to a wild spot in Quercy where he
built a chapel in honour of the Blessed Virgin, near which he
died a little later. This marvellous account, like most other
similar legends, unfortunately does not make its first
appearance till long after the age in which the chief actors are
deemed to have lived. The name of Amadour occurs in no document
previous to the compilation of his Acts, which on careful
examination and on an application of the rules of the cursus to
the text cannot be judged older than the twelfth century. It is
now well established that St. martial, Amadour's contemporary in
the legend, lived in the third not the first century, and Rome
has never included him among the members of the Apostolic
College. The mention, therefore, of St. martial in the Acts of
St. Amadour would alone suffice, even if other proof were
wanting, to prove them a forgery. The untrustworthiness of the
legend has led some recent authors to suggest that Amadour was
an unknown hermit or possible St. Amator, Bishop of Auxerre, but
this is mere hypothesis, without any historical basis. Although
the origin of the sanctuary of Rocamadour, lost in antiquity, is
thus first set down along with fabulous traditions which cannot
bear the light of sound criticism, yet it is undoubted that this
spot, hallowed by the prayers of innumerable multitudes of
pilgrims, is worthy of our veneration. After the religious
manifestations of the Middle Ages, Rocamadour, as a result of
war and revolution, had become almost deserted. Recently, owing
to the zeal and activity of the bishops of Cahors, it seems to
have revived and pilgrims are beginning to crown there again.
DE GISSEY, Hist. et miracles de N. D. de Roc-Amadour au pays de
Quercy (Tulle, 1666); CAILLAU, Hist. crit. Et relig. De N .D. de
Rod-Amadour (Paris, 1834); IDEM, Le Jour de Marie ou le guide du
pelerin de Roc-Amadour (Paris, 1836); SERVOIS, Notice et
extraits du recueil des miracles de Roc-Amadour (Paris, 1856);
LIEUTAUD, La Vida de S. Amadour, texte provenc,al du XIV's.
(Cahors, 1876); BOURRIERES, Saint Amadour et Sainte Veronique,
disciples de Notre Seigneur et apotres de Gauels (Paris, 1895);
ENARD, Lettre pastorale sur l'hist de Roc-Amadour. . . (Cahors,
1899); RUPIN, Roc-Amadour etude hist. et archeol. (Paris, 1904),
an excellent work containing the definitive history of
Roc-Amadour; ALBE, Les miracles de N. D. de Rod-Amadour au XIIx
s., texte et traduction des manusrits de la Bibiotheque
nationale (Paris, 1907), corroborating the work of Rupin.
LEON CLUGNET
Angelo Rocca
Angelo Rocca
Founder of the Angelica Library at Rome, b. at Rocca, now
Arecevia, near Ancone, 1545; d. at Rome, 8 April, 1620. He was
received at the age of seven into the Augustinian monastery at
Camerino (hence also called Camers, Camerinus), studied at
Perugia, Rome, Venice, and in 1577 graduated as doctor in
theology from Padua. He became secretary to the superior-general
of the Augustinians in 1579, was placed at the head of the
Vatican printing-office in 1585, and entrusted with the
superintendence of the projected editions of the Bible and the
writings of the Fathers. In 1595 he was appointed sacristan in
the papal chapel, and in 1605 became titular Bishop of Tagaste
in Numidia. The public library of the Augustinians at Rome,
formally established 23 October, 1614, perpetuated his name. It
is mainly to his efforts that we owe the edition of the Vulgate
published during the pontificate of Clement VIII. He also edited
the works of Egidio Colonna (Venice, 1581), of Augustinus
Triumphus (Rome, 1582), and wrote: "Bibliothecae theologicae et
scripturalis epitome" (Rome, 1594); "De Sacrosancto Christi
corpore romanis pontificibus iter conficientibus praeferendo
commentarius" (Rome, 1599); "De canonizatione sanctorum
commentarius" (Rome, 1601), "De campanis" (Rome, 1612). An
incomplete collection of his works was published in 1719 and
1745 at Rome: "Thesaurus pontificiarum sacrarumque antiquitatum
necnon rituum praxium et caeremoniarium".
OSSINGER, Bibl. August (Ingolstadt, 1768), 754-64; CHALMERS,
Gen. Biol. Dict., s. v.
N.A. WEBER
St. Roch
St. Roch
Born at Montpellier towards 1295; died 1327. His father was
governor of that city. At his birth St. Roch is said to have
been found miraculously marked on the breast with a red cross.
Deprived of his parents when about twenty years old, he
distributed his fortune among the poor, handed over to his uncle
the government of Montpellier, and in the disguise of a
mendicant pilgrim, set out for Italy, but stopped at
Aquapendente, which was stricken by the plague, and devoted
himself to the plague-stricken, curing them with the sign of the
cross. He next visited Cesena and other neighbouring cities and
then Rome. Everywhere the terrible scourge disappeared before
his miraculous power. He visited Mantua, Modena, Parma, and
other cities with the same results. At Piacenza, he himself was
stricken with the plague. He withdrew to a hut in the
neighbouring forest, where his wants were supplied by a
gentleman named Gothard, who by a miracle learned the place of
his retreat. After his recovery Roch returned to France.
Arriving at Montpellier and refusing to disclose his identity,
he was taken for a spy in the disguise of a pilgrim, and cast
into prison by order of the governor, -- his own uncle, some
writers say, -- where five years later he died. The miraculous
cross on his breast as well as a document found in his
possession now served for his identification. He was accordingly
given a public funeral, and numerous miracles attested his
sanctity.
In 1414, during the Council of Constance, the plague having
broken out in that city, the Fathers of the Council ordered
public prayers and processions in honour of the saint, and
immediately the plague ceased. His relics, according to Wadding,
were carried furtively to Venice in 1485, where they are still
venerated. It is commonly held that he belonged to the Third
Order of St. Francis; but it cannot be proved. Wadding leaves it
an open question. Urban VIII approved the ecclesiastical office
to be recited on his feast (16 August). Paul III instituted a
confraternity, under the invocation of the saint, to have charge
of the church and hospital erected during the pontificate of
Alexander VI. The confraternity increased so rapidly that Paul
IV raised it to an archconfraternity, with powers to aggregate
similar confraternities of St. Roch. It was given a
cardinal-protector, and a prelate of high rank was to be its
immediate superior (see Reg. et Const. Societatis S. Rochi).
Various favours have been bestowed on it by Pius IV (C.
Regimini, 7 March, 1561), by Gregory XIII (C. dated 5 January,
1577), by Gregory XIV (C. Paternar. pont., 7 March, 1591), and
by other pontiffs. It still flourishes.
WADDING, Annales Min. (Rome, 1731), VII, 70; IX, 251; Acta SS.
(Venice, 1752), 16 August; Gallia Christiana, VI ad an. 1328;
ANDRE, Hist. de S. Roch (Carpentras, 1854); CHAVANNE, S. Roch
Hist. complete, etc. (Lyons, 1876); COFFINIERES, S. Roch, etudes
histor. sur Montpellier au XIVe siecle (Montpellier, 1855);
BEVIGNANI, Vita del Taumaturgo S. Rocco (Rome, 1878); Vita del
glorioso S. Rocco, figlio di Giovanni principe di Agatopoli, ora
detta Montpellieri, con la storica relazione del suo corpo
(Venice, 1751); BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 16 August; LEON,
Lives of the Saints of the Three Orders of S. Francis (Taunton,
England, 1886); PIAZZA, Opere pie di Roma (Rome, 1679).
GREGORY CLEARY
Rochambeau
Jean-Baptiste-Donatien de Vimeur, Count de Rochambeau
Marshal, b. at Vendome, France, 1 July, 1725; d. at Thore, 10
May, 1807. At the age of sixteen he entered the army and in 1745
became an aid to Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, subsequently
commanding a regiment. He served with distinction in several
important battles, notably those of Minorca, Crevelt, and
Minden, and was wounded at the battle of Lafeldt. When the
French monarch resolved to despatch a military force to aid the
American colonies in the Revolutionary War, Rochambeau was
created a lieutenant-general and placed in command of a body of
troops which numbered some 6000 men. It was the smallness of
this force that made Rochambeau at first averse to taking part
in the American War, but his sympathy with the colonial cause
compelled him eventually to accept the command, and he arrived
at Newport, Rhode Island July, 1780, and joined the American
army under Washington, on the Hudson a few miles above the city
of New York. Rochambeau performed the double duties of a
diplomat and general in an alien army with rare distinction
amidst somewhat trying circumstances, not the least of which
being a somewhat unaccountable coolness between Washington and
himself, which, fortunately, was of but passing import (see the
correspondence and diary of Count Axel Fersen). After the first
meeting with the American general he marched with his force to
the Virginia peninsula and rendered heroic assistance at
Yorktown in the capture of the English forces under Lord
Cornwallis, which concluded the hostilities. When Cornwallis
surrendered, 19 Oct., 1781, Rochambeau was presented with one of
the captured cannon. After the surrender he embarked for France
amid ardent protestations of gratitude and admiration from the
officers and men of the American army. In 1783 he received the
decoration of Saint-Esprit and obtained the baton of a marshal
of France in 1791. Early in 1792 he was placed in command of the
army of the North, and conducted a force against the Austrians,
but resigned the same year and narrowly escaped the guillotine
when the Jacobin revolutionary power had obtained supreme
control in Paris. When the fury of the revolution had spent
itself, Rochambeau was reinstated in the regard of his
countrymen. He was granted a pension by Napoleon Bonaparte in
1804, and was decorated with the Cross of Grand Officer of the
Legion of Honour. The last years of the distinguished military
leader's life were passed in the dictation of his memoirs, which
appeared in two volumes in Paris in 1809, and which throw many
personal and brilliant sidelights on the events of two of the
most historically impressive revolutions, and the exceptional
men therein concerned.
WRIGHT, Memoirs of Marshal Count de Rochambeau Relative to the
War or Independence (1838); SOULE, Histoire des troubles de
l'Amerique anglaise(Paris, 1787); standard histories of the
United States may also be consulted.
JARVIS KEILEY
Rochester
Ancient See of Rochester
(ROFFA; ROFFENSIS).
The oldest and smallest of all the suffragan sees of Canterbury,
was founded by St. Augustine, Apostle of England, who in 604
consecrated St. Justus as its first bishop. It consisted roughly
of the western part of Kent, separated from the rest of the
county by the Medway, though the diocesan boundaries did not
follow the river very closely. The cathedral, founded by King
Ethelbert and dedicated to St. Andrew from whose monastery at
Rome St. Augustine and St. Justus had come, was served by a
college of secular priests and endowed with land near the city
called Priestfield. It suffered much from the Mercians (676) and
the Danes, but the city retained its importance, and after the
Norman Conquest a new cathedral was begun by the Norman bishop
Gundulf. This energetic prelate replaced the secular chaplains
by Benedictine monks, translated the relics of St. Paulinus to a
silver shrine which became a place of pilgrimage, obtained
several royal grants of land, and proved an untiring benefactor
to his cathedral city. Gundulf had built the nave and western
front before his death; the western transept was added between
1179 and 1200, and the eastern transept during the reign of
Henry III. The cathedral is small, being only 306 feet long, but
its nave is the oldest in England and it has a fine Norman
crypt. Besides the shrine of St. Paulinus, the cathedral
contained the relics of St. Ithamar, the first Saxon to be
consecrated to the episcopate, and St. William of Perth, who was
held in popular veneration. In 1130 the cathedral was
consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury assisted by thirteen
bishops in the presence of Henry I, but the occasion was marred
by a great fire which nearly destroyed the whole city and
damaged the new cathedral. After the burial of St. William of
Perth in 1201 the offerings at his tomb were so great, that by
their means the choir was rebuilt and the central tower was
added (1343), thus completing the cathedral. From the foundation
of the see the arthbishops of Canterbury had enjoyed the
privilege of nominating the bishop, but Archbishop Theobald
transferred the right to the Benedictine monks of the cathedral
who exercised it for the first time in 1148.
The following is the list of bishops with the date of their
accession; but the succession from Tatnoth (844) to Siward
(1058) is obscure, and may be modified by fresh research:
St. Justus, 604
Romanus, 624
Vacancy, 625
St. Paulinus, 633
St. Ithamar, 644
Damianus, 655
Vacancy, 664
Putta, 666-9
Cwichelm, 676
Gebmund, 678
Tobias, 693-706
Ealdwulf, 727
Dunno, 741
Eardwulf, 747
Deora, 765-72
Waermund I, 781-5
Beornmod, 803-5
Tatnoth, 844
Beadunoth (possibly identical with Waermund II)
Waermund II, 845-62
Cuthwulf, 860- 8
Swithwulf (date unknown)
Ceolmund, 897-904
Cynefrith (date unknown)
Burbric, 933 or 934
Beorhtsige (doubtful name)
Daniel, 951-5
Aelfstan, c. 964
Godwine I, 995
Godwine II (date unknown)
Siweard, 1058
Arnost, 1076
Gundulf, 1077
Radulphus d'Escures, 1108
Ernulf, 1115
John of Canterbury, 1125
John of Sees, 1137
Ascelin, 1142
Walter, 1148 Gualeran, 1182
Gilbert de Glanvill, 1185
Benedict de Sansetun, 1215
Henry Sandford, 1226
Richard de Wendover, 1235 (consecrated, 1238)
Lawrence de St. Martin, 1251
Walter de Merton, 1274
John de Bradfield, 1277
Thomas Inglethorp, 1283
Thomas de Wouldham, 1292
Vacancy, 1317
Hamo de Hythe, 1319
John de Sheppey, 1352
William of Whittlesea, 1362
Thomas Trilleck, 1384
Thomas Brunton, 1373
William de Bottisham, 1389
John de Bottisham, 1400
Richard Young, 1404
John Kemp, 1419 (afterwards Cardinal)
John Langdon, 1421
Thomas Brown, 1435
William Wells, 1437
John Lowe, 1444
Thomas Rotheram (or Scott), 1468
John Alcock, 1472
John Russell, 1476
Edmund Audley, 1480
Thomas Savage, 1492
Richard Fitz James, 1496
Bl. John Fisher, 1504 (Cardinal)
Schismatical bishops:
John Hilsey, 1535
Richard Heath, 1539
Henry Holbeach, 1543
Nicholas Ridley, 1547
John Poynet, 1550
John Scory, 1551
Vacancy, 1552
The canonical line was restored by the appointment in 1554 of
Maurice Griffith, the last Catholic bishop of Rochester, who
died in 1558. The diocese was so small, consisting merely of
part of Kent, that it needed only one archdeacon (Rochester) to
supervise the 97 parishes. It was also the poorest diocese in
England. The cathedral was dedicated to St. Andrew the Apostle.
The arms of the see were argent, on a saltire gules an Escalop
shell, or.
SHRUBSOLE AND DENNE, History and Antiquities of Rochester
(London, 1772); Wharton, Anglia Sacra (London, 1691) pt. i,
includes annals by DE HADENHAM (604-1307) and DE DENE (1314-50);
PEARMAN, Rochester: Diocesan History (London, 1897); PALMER,
Rochester: The Cathedral and See (London, 1897); HOPE,
Architectural History of Cathedral in Kent Arch*logical Society,
XXIII, XXIV (1898- 1900); ERNULPHUS, Textus Roffensis, ed.
HEARNE (London, 1720), reprinted in P. L. CLXIII; PEGGE, Account
of Textus Roffensis (London, 1784) in NICHOLS, Bib. Topog.
Brit., (London, 1790); J. Thorpe, Registrum Roffense (London,
1769); J. THORPE, JR., Custumale Roffense (London, 1988);
WINKLE, Cathedral Churches of England and Wales (London, 1860);
FAIRBANKS, Cathedrals of England and Wales (London, 1907);
GODWIN, De pr*sulibus Angli* (London, 1743); GAMS, Series
Episcoporum (Ratisbon, 1873); SEARLE, Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings
and Nobles (Cambridge, 1899).
EDWIN BURTON
Rochester
Diocese of Rochester
This diocese, on its establishment by separation from the See of
Buffalo, 24 January, 1868, comprised the counties of Monroe,
Livingston, Wayne, Ontario, Seneca, Cayuga, Yates, and Tompkins
in the state of New York. In 1896, after the death of Bishop
Ryan of Buffalo, the boundary line of the two dioceses was
somewhat changed, the counties of Steuben, Schuyler, Chemung,
and Tioga being detached from the See of Buffalo and added to
that of Rochester.
Bishops
(1) Rev. Bernard J. McQuaid, who became a pioneer and leader in
Catholic education and the founder of a model seminary, was
consecrated bishop of Rochester in St. Patrick's Cathedral, New
York City, on 12 July, 1868. Four days later he took possession
of his small and poor diocese, containing only sixty churches
administered by thirty-eight priests, seven of whom were
Redemptorist Fathers. When he died, 18 Jan., 1909, after forty
years spent in a laborious episcopate, his diocese was richly
furnished with churches, schools, seminaries, charitable
institutions, answering the manifold needs of the Catholic
population, then estimated at 121,000.
(2) Rev. Thomas F. Hickey was consecrated in St. Patrick's
Cathedral, Rochester, 24 May, 1905, having been appointed
coadjutor to Bishop McQuaid.
Churches
The steady growth of the Catholic population in the Diocese of
Rochester, due mainly to immigration of Irish, German, French,
Polish, Italian, Lithuanian and Ruthenian Catholics, taxed the
resources at the disposal of Bishop McQuaid, who was anxious
throughout his entire episcopate to supply the people with
churches and priests of their own nationality and language,
whenever they were willing and able to support them. The
parishes were not allowed to become unwieldy, but were increased
in number to meet the needs and conveniences of the faithful.
The problem of spiritual ministration to Catholics dwelling at
watering- places in the diocese in the summer found a good
solution in the erection of neat summer chapels.
Catholic Education
The common schools in the Diocese of Rochester at the time of
its creation professed to be non-sectarian. Bishop McQuaid felt
that they were very dangerous to the Catholic child which really
finds its church in the school. He sought a remedy in a vigorous
agitation for the rights of Catholic parents, contributing to
the support of the public school system by their taxes, to
receive public money for the maintenance of schools, in which
their children could be educated with that "amount and
description of religious instruction" which conscience tells
them is good, expedient, necessary. The failure of the State to
remedy the injustice was met with the firm command of the bishop
which was put into execution as soon as possible throughout the
diocese: "Build schoolhouses then for the religious education of
your children as the best protest against a system of education
from which religion has been excluded by law." At Rochester in
1868, there were 2056 children in the parochial schools of the
five German churches, and 441 children in the schools attached
to the Churches of St. Patrick and St. Mary. Both of these had a
select or pay school and a free, parish, or poor school,
admitting invidious distinctions very distasteful to the new
bishop.
Outside of Rochester schools were attached to a few churches of
the diocese, but with a very small attendance. These were the
humble beginnings of the admirable parochial school system,
which embraces today practically all the Catholic children of
the school age in the diocese. Not all the Catholic schools were
brought to their present high degree of efficiency at once; it
took many years and persistent effort to accomplish this work.
The brothers gradually yielded their places to the sisters, who
now teach all the children in the Catholic schools, both boys
and girls. Bishop McQuaid spared no pains in developing good
teachers in his own order of the Sisters of St. Joseph, for whom
a normal training school was established. Occasional "teachers'
institutes" organized for the benefit of these sisterhoods in
Rochester prepared the way for the annual conference held by the
parochial teachers in the episcopal city since 1904, at which
the various orders meet to discuss educational problems and to
perfect in every possible way the parochial school system.
As early as 1855 the Ladies of the Sacred Heart transferred
their convent in Buffalo to Rochester as a more central point
for their academy. About the same time the Sisters of St. Joseph
in Canandaigua opened St. Mary's academy for young ladies, now
Nazareth Academy attached to the new motherhouse of the order in
Rochester. Advanced courses were also introduced in 1903 into
the Cathedral school under the direction of Bishop Hickey, who,
in 1906, converted the old Cathedral Hall into a high school,
classical and commercial, open to both girls and boys.
Ecclesiastical
(a) Preparatory.--Believing that it was hard for a boy to become
a worthy priest without first leading the normal life of the
family in the world, Bishop McQuaid planned his preparatory
ecclesiastical seminary as a free day-school and not a
boarding-school, the students living at home under the care of
their parents, or in a boarding house approved by the superiors.
Within two years after the erection of the diocese, this plan
was realized. On his return from the Vatican Council in 1870,
St. Andrew's Preparatory Seminary was opened in a small building
to the rear of the episcopal residence. It has already given
nearly 175 priests to the diocese of Rochester. The rule has
been made to adopt no one in this diocese who has ot spent at
least two years in St. Andrew's Seminary. Through the generosity
of Mgr. H. De Regge and some others, Bishop McQuaid was enabled
to erect a new building in 1880 and to enlarge it in 1889; and
in 1904 the younger priests of the diocese furnished him with
funds to erect a fire-proof structure with fitting
accommodations for the work of the school.
(b) Theological.--For many years the ecclesiastical students of
the Diocese of Rochester were sent mainly to the provincial
seminary at Troy or to Rome and Innsbruck in Europe for their
theological education. In 1879 Bishop McQuaid put aside a small
legacy bequeathed him as a nucleus of a fund for the erection of
suitable buildings for a diocesan seminary. Although the fund
grew slowly, the bishop would not lay the first stone until
nearly all the money needed for the work was in hand, nor would
he open the seminary for students until the buildings were
completed and paid for, and at least four professorships
endowed. In April, 1887, he was able to purchase a site on the
bank of the Genesee River gorge, only three miles from the
cathedral. Four years later he began the erection of the
buildings. In two years they were completed, and in September,
1893, the seminary was opened with 39 students. Applications for
admission soon came from various parts of the United States and
Canada. Four years after its establishment, it became evident
that more room was necessary. A fund for an additional building
was begun and in 1900, the Hall of Philosophy and Science was
erected with accommodations for class-rooms, library, and living
rooms. In the following year Bishop McQuaid received a
recognition for these labours from Leo XIII in a Brief granting
to himself and his successors the power of conferring degrees in
Philosophy and Theology. The Hall of Theology was begun in 1907
and solemnly dedicated 20 August, 1908. The priests of the
diocese founded the ninth endowed professorship in honour of
their bishop's jubilee. An infirmary for sick students was in
process of construction when Bishop McQuaid died.
Charities
Though Catholic education was the primary concern of Bishop
McQuaid in his diocese, ample provision for its charities was
not lacking.
(1) As early as 1845 the R.C.A. Society of Rochester, already in
existence some years, was incorporated, having for its object
the support of the orphan girls in St. Patrick's Female Orphan
Asylum at Rochester and the support of the orphan boys sent to
the Boys' Asylum, either at Lancaster, New York, or at Lime
Stone Hill near Buffalo. In 1864 St. Mary's Boys' Orphan Asylum
was also established in Rochester under the care of the Sisters
of St. Joseph, to whom also the Girls' Orphan Asylum was
confided in 1870 on the resignation of the Sisters of Charity
hitherto in charge. When the Auburn Orphan Asylum, incorporated
in 1853, was transferred to Rochester in 1910, all this work was
then centralized in the episcopal city. Here also special
provision had been made for the German Catholic orphans since
1866, when St. Joseph's Orphan Asylum was erected and placed
under the care of the Sisters of Notre-Dame.
(2) In 1873 a short-lived attempt was made to supplement the
work of St. Mary's Orphan Asylum by giving the boys of suitable
age an opportunity of acquiring a practical knowledge of farming
or of a useful trade. A similar institution for girls flourished
under Mother Hieronymo for some twenty years under the name of
The Home of Industry which then was changed into a home for the
aged. The location did not prove desirable for such an
institution, and $65,000 having been raised by a bazaar, Bishop
McQuaid was enabled to erect St. Anne's Home for the Aged,
admitting men as well as women.
(3) The spiritual needs of another class of the destitute, the
Catholic inmates of public eleemosynary and penal institution in
the diocese, appealed strongly to Bishop McQuaid, who at once
became their champion in the endeavour to have their religious
rights respected according to the guarantee of the Constitution
of the State of New York. His agitation in this noble cause was
crowned with success, and the State supports today chaplains at
the State Industrial School, Industry, at the State Reformatory,
Elmira, at the Craig Colony (state hospital for epileptics),
Sonyea, at the Soldiers' and Sailors' Home, Bath, while the
county maintains a chaplain in Rochester for its public
institutions of this kind.
(4) The Catholic sick have one of the largest and best equipped
hospitals in Rochester at their disposal in St. Mary's Hospital,
established by the Sisters of Charity under Mother Hieronymo in
1857. The Sisters of Mercy have charge of St. James Hospital in
Hornell, and of late years the Sisters of St. Joseph have also
opened a hospital in Elmira.
Statistics
Priests, 163 (6 Redemptorists); churches with resident priests,
94; missions with churches, 36; chapels, 18; parishes with
parochial schools, 54 with 20,189 pupils; academies for young
ladies, 2 with 470 pupils (Nazareth, 352; Sacred Heart, 118);
theological seminary for secular clergy, 1 with 234 students (73
for the Diocese of Rochester); preparatory seminary, 1 with 80
students; orphan asylums, 3 with 438 orphans (St. Patrick's,
Girls', 119; St. Mary's Boys', 204; St. Joseph's, 115); Home for
the Aged, 1 with 145 inmates (men, 25); hospitals, 3 with 3115
inmates during year (St. Mary's, Rochester, 2216; St. Joseph's,
Elmira, 463; St. James, Hornell, 436); Catholics, 142,263.
Conc. Balt. Plen. acta et decreta; Acta S. Sedis, III; Leonis
XIII Acta xvi, xxi; Catholic Directory, (1866-1911); McQuaid:
Diaries (fragmentary); IDEM, Pastorals in Annual Coll. for Eccl.
students (1871-1911); IDEM, Pastoral (Jubilee) (1875); IDEM,
Pastoral (Visitation) (1878); IDEM, Our American Seminaries in
Am. Eccl. Rev. (May, 1897), reprint in SMITH, The Training of a
Priest, pp. xxi-xxxix; IDEM, The Training of a Seminary
Professor in SMITH, op. cit., pp. 237-35; IDEM, Christian Free
Schools (1892), a reprint of lectures; IDEM, Religion in Schools
in North Am. Rev (April, 1881); IDEM, Religious Teaching in
Schools in Forum (Dec., 1889); Reports of Conferences held by
parochial teachers (1904-10).
FREDERICK J. ZWIERLEIN
Rochet
Rochet
An over-tunic usually made of fine white linen (cambric; fine
cotton material is also allowed), and reaching to the knees.
While bearing a general resemblance to the surplice, it is
distinguished from that vestment by the shape of the sleeves; in
the surplice these are at least fairly wide, while in the rochet
they are always tight-fitting. The rochet is decorated with lace
or embroidered borders--broader at the hem and narrower on the
sleeves. To make the vestment entirely of tulle or lace is
inconvenient, as is the inordinate use of plaits; in both cases,
the vestment becomes too effeminate. The rochet is not a
vestment pertaining to all clerics, like the surplice; it is
distinctive of prelates, and may be worn by other ecclesiastics
only when (as, e.g., in the case of cathedral chapters) the usus
rochetti has been granted them by a special papal indult. That
the rochet possesses no liturgical character is clear both from
the Decree of Urban VII prefixed to the Roman Missal, and from
an express decision of the Congregation of Rites (10 Jan.,
1852), which declares that, in the administration of the
sacraments, the rochet may not be used as a vestis sacra; in the
administration of the sacraments, as well as at the conferring
of the tonsure and the minor orders, use should be made of the
surplice (cf. the decision of 31 May, 1817; 17 Sept., 1722; 16
April, 1831). However, as the rochet may be used by the properly
privileged persons as choir-dress, it may be included among the
liturgical vestments in the broad sense, like the biretta or the
cappa magna. Prelates who do not belong to a religious order,
should wear the rochet over the soutane during Mass in so far as
this is convenient.
The origin of the rochet may be traced from the clerical (non-
liturgical) alba or camisia, that is, the clerical linen tunic
of everyday life. It was thus not originally distinctive of the
higher ecclesiastics alone. This camisia appears first in Rome
as a privileged vestment; that this was the case in the
Christian capital as early as the ninth century is established
by the St. Gall catalogue of vestments. Outside of Rome the
rochet remained to a great extent a vestment common to all
clerics until the fourteenth century (and even longer);
according to various German synodal statutes of the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries (Trier, Passau, Cambrai, etc.), it was
worn even by sacristans. The Fourth Lateran Council prescribed
its use for bishops who did not belong to a religious order,
both in the church and on all public appearances. The name
rochet (from the medieval roccus) was scarcely in use before the
thirteenth century. It is first met outside of Rome, where,
until the fifteenth century, the vestment was called camisia,
alba romana, or succa (subta). These names gradually yielded to
rochet in Rome also. Originally, the rochet reached, like the
liturgical alb, to the feet, and, even in the fifteenth century
still reached to the shins. It was not reduced to its present
length until the seventeenth century.
BRAUN, Die liturg. Gewandung im Occident u. Orient (Freiburg,
1907), 125 sqq.; BOCK, Gesch. der liturg Gewaender, II (Bonn,
1866), 329 sqq.; ROHAULT DE BLEURY, La Messe, VII (Paris, 1888).
JOSEPH BRAUN
Desire Raoul Rochette
Desire Raoul Rochette
Usually known as Raoul-Rochette, a French archaeologist, b. at
St. Amand (Cher), 9 March, 1789; d. in Paris, 3 June, 1854. His
father was a physician. He made his classical studies the lyceum
of Bourges, and then took up post-graduate work in the Ecole
Normale Superieure in Paris. In 1810, he obtained a chair of
grammar in the lyceum Louis-le-Grand, and in the same year,
married the daughter of the celebrated sculptor Houdon. Three
years later, he was awarded a prize by the Institute for his
"Memoire sur les Colonies Grecques". In 1815, he became lecturer
at the Ecole Normale and succeeded Guizot in the chair of modern
history at the Sorbonne. It has been often said that he owed his
rapid advancement only to favoritism, because of his devotion to
the ruling power; this is not entirely true. He was a real
scholar whose deep knowledge of archaeology was admired even by
his political enemies. He was elected to the Academy of
Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres in 1816, and two years later,
made a keeper of medals and antiques. His appointment to the
position of censor (1820) aroused the hostility of his students,
who prevented him from delivering his lectures and caused the
course to be suspended. In 1824 he was transferred to the chair
of archaeology. He entered the Academy of Fine Arts in 1838, and
was made it perpetual secretary in 1839. Besides his memoirs for
the Institute and numerous contributions to the "Journal de
Savants, he wrote many books, the chief of which are: "Histoire
critique de;'etablissement des colonies grecques" (Paris, 1815);
"Antiquites grecques du Bosphore Cimmerien" (Paris, 1822);
"Lettres sur le Suisse" (Paris, 1826); "Memoires inedits
d'antiquite figuree grecque, etrusque et Romaine" (Paris, 1828);
"Pompei" (Paris, 1828); "Cours d'archeologie" (Paris, 1828);
"Peintures antiques inedites" (Paris, 1836).
LOUIS N. DELAMARRE
Daniel Rock
Daniel Rock
Antiquarian and ecclesiologist, b. at Liverpool, 31 August,
1799; d. at Kensington, London, 28 November, 1871. He was
educated at St. Edmund's College, Old Hall, where he studied
from April, 1813, to Dec., 1818. There he came under the
influence of the Rev. Louis Havard from whom he acquired his
first interest in liturgy, and was the intimate companion of the
future historian, Mark A. Tierney. He was then chosen as one of
the first students sent to reopen the English College at Rome,
where he remained till he took the degree of D.D. in 1825. He
had been ordained priest, 13 March, 1824. On his return to
London he becomes assistant priest at St. Mary's, Moorfields,
till 1827, when he was appointed domestic chaplain to John, Earl
of Shrewsbury, with whom he had contracted a friendship based on
similarity of tastes while at Rome. He accordingly resided at
Alton Towers, Staffordshire, till 1840, with the exception of
two years during which Lord Shrewsbury's generosity enabled him
to stay at Rome collecting materials for his great work,
"Hierurgia or the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass", which was
published in 1833. He had previously published two short works:
"Transubstantiation vindicated from the strictures of the Rev.
Maurice Jones" (1830), and "The Liturgy of the Mass and Common
Vespers for Sundays" (1832).
In 1840 he became chaplain to Sir Robert Throckmorton of
Buckland in Berkshire, and while there wrote his greatest book,
"The Church of Our Fathers", in which he studies the Sarum Rite
and other medieval liturgical observances. This work, which has
profoundly influenced liturgical study in England and which
caused his recognition as the leading authority on the subject,
was published in 1849 (vols. I and II) and 1853-4 (vol. III).
After 1840 Dr. Rock was a prominent member of the "Adelphi", an
association of London priests who were working together for the
restoration of the hierarchy. When this object was achieved, he
was elected one of the first canons of Southwark (1852). Shortly
after, he ceased parochial work, and having resided successfully
at Newick, Surrey (1854-64), he went to live near the South
Kensington Museum in which he took the keenest interest and to
which he proved of much service. His "Introduction to the
Catalogue of Textile Fabrics" in that Museum has been separately
reprinted (1876) and is of great authority. He also contributed
frequent articles to the Archaeological Journal, the Dublin
Review, and other periodicals. For many years before his death
he held the honourable position of President of the Old
Brotherhood of the English Secular Clergy. There is an oil
painting of him at St. Edmund's College, Old Hall.
GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; SUTTON in Dict. Nat.
Biog., s. v. incorrectly dating his departure for Rome 1813
instead of 1818; KELLY, Life of Daniel Rock, D.D., prefixed to
the modern Anglican ed. The Church of Our Fathers, ed. HART AND
FRERE (London, 1903), with portrait. The Edmundian, II (1895),
no. 8.
EDWIN BURTON
Diocese of Rockford
Diocese of Rockford
(ROCKFORDIENSIS).
Created 23 September, 1908, comprises Jo Daviess, Stephenson,
Winnebago, Boone, McHenry, Carrol, Ogle, DeKalb, Kane,
Whiteside, Lee, and Kendall Counties in the north-western part
of the State of Illinois. The diocese has an area of 6867 sq.
miles, and a Catholic population of 50,000, mostly Irish and
Germans or their descendants. The total population of the twelve
counties that form the diocese, according to the last census, in
414,872. The entire territory of the Diocese of Rockford was a
part of the Archdiocese of Chicago until 23 September, 1908. The
city of Rockford has a population of 48,000; it is a
manufacturing centre. The Right Reverend Peter James Muldoon,
formerly Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago, was appointed the first
Bishop of Rockford, and took possession of his see, 15 December,
1908. There are in the diocese (1911), 99 secular priests, 18
missions with attendance of 3850, 5 hospitals, 1 maternity home,
1 home for aged, and Mt. St. Mary's Academy for Girls (St.
Charles) with an attendance of 84.
Offic. Catholic Directory
J.J. FLANAGAN
Rockhampton
Rockhampton
Diocese in Queensland, Australia. In 1862 Father Duhig visited
the infant settlement on the banks of the Fitzroy River and
celebrated the first Mass there. Father Scully came from
Brisbane to attend to the spiritual needs of the little
congregation and in 1863 Dean Murlay was appointed first
resident pastor of Rockhampton, his parish extending as far
north as Cooktown and south to Maryborough. He built the first
Catholic church in Rockhampton, a wooden edifice still standing,
and for many years was the only priest to look after the
Catholics scattered over the vast territory. A foundation of the
Sisters of Mercy from All-Hallows Convent, Brisbane, was
established in 1873, and Sister Mary de Sales Gorry, the first
Queensland-born nun, was appointed Superioress. Rockhampton
remained part of the Diocese of Brisbane until 1882. In 1876 the
Holy See erected the northern portion of the colony into a
pro-vicariate, and in 1882 made Rockhampton a see with a
territory of some 350,000 square miles. Right Rev. Dr. Cani, a
native of the papal states, who had had a distinguished
scholastic career at Rome, and former pro-vicar Apostolic of
North Queensland, was appointed first bishop of the new diocese.
Bishop Cani, who was then administering the diocese of Brisbane,
was consecrated by Archbishop Vaughan in St. Mary's Cathedral,
Sydney, 21 May, 1882, and was installed in his temporary
cathedral at Rockhampton on 11 June following.
In the new diocese there were about 10,000 Catholics, 6 or 7
priests, 8 Catholic schools, and 1 orphanage. Bishop Cani added
to the small number of priests, purchased sites for new
churches, and acquired 3000 acres of fertile land near
Rockhampton for a central orphanage which he had built and
placed under the care of the Sisters of Mercy. His great work
was the erection of St. Joseph's Cathedral, a magnificent stone
edifice which he did not live to see dedicated. After a
strenuous episcopate of sixteen years Dr. Cani died, 3 March,
1898. His great virtues were recognized even by those outside
the Church. Humility and simplicity of life, love of the poor
and orphans were his special characteristics. He was succeeded
in Rockhampton by Right Rev. Dr. Higgins, a native of Co. Meath,
Ireland, and now Bishop of Ballarat. Dr. Higgins studied in
Maynooth, was subsequently president of the Diocesan seminary at
Navan, and in 1888 was chosen auxiliary bishop to the Cardinal
Archbishop of Sydney with the title of titular bishop of
Antifelle. He had zealously laboured in the Archdiocese of
Sydney for over ten years, when appointed to Rockhampton. He
traversed his new diocese from end to end, gauged its wants,
attracted priests to his aid, placed students for the mission in
various ecclesiastical colleges, introduced new religious
teaching orders, built and dedicated churches, convents, and
schools in several centres, bringing the blessings of religion
and Christian education to the children of the backblocks.
On 15 October, 1899, the beautiful new cathedral was dedicated
by the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney assisted by several other
distinguished Australian prelates in the presence of a great
concourse of people. The remains of Dr. Cani were transferred
thither. Dr. Higgins visited Rome and Ireland in 1904, and
returned with renewed energy to carry on his great work. On the
death of Dr. Moore, Bishop of Ballarat, Victoria, he was
translated to that important See, where he has ever since
laboured with characteristic zeal and devotedness. The present
Bishop of Rockhampton is Right Rev. Dr. James Duhig, born at
Broadford, Co. Limerick, Ireland, 1870. Dr. Duhig emigrated from
Ireland with his family at the age of thirteen, studied with the
Christian Brothers at Brisbane and at the Irish College, Rome,
was ordained priest, 19 Sept., 1896, and, returning to
Queensland in the following year, was appointed to a curacy in
the parish of Ipswich. In 1905 he was appointed administrator of
St. Stephen's Cathedral, Brisbane, and received the briefs of
his appointment to the See of Rockhampton. At present (1911)
there are in the Diocese of Rockhampton: about 28,000 Catholics;
19 missions or districts; 30 priests (4 of whom belong to the
Marist congregation, who have 1 house in the diocese); 12
Christian Brothers; 150 nuns; and 26 Catholic schools, attended
by about 5000 children.
J. DUHIG
Rococo Style
Rococo Style
This style received its name in the nineteenth century from
French emigres, who used the word to designate in whimsical
fashion the old shellwork style (style rocaille), then regarded
as Old Frankish, as opposed to the succeeding more simple
styles. Essentially, it is in the same kind of art and
decoration as flourished in France during the regency following
Louis XIV's death, and remained in fashion for about forty years
(1715-50). It might be termed the climax or degeneration of the
Baroque, which, coupled with French grace, began towards the end
of the reign of Louis XIV to convert grotesques into curves,
lines, and bands (Jean Berain, 1638-1711). As its effect was
less pronounced on architectural construction than elsewhere, it
is not so much a real style as a new kind of decoration, which
culminates in the resolution of architectural forms of the
interiors (pilasters and architraves) by arbitrary ornamentation
after the fashion of an unregulated, enervated Baroque, while
also influencing the arrangement of space, the construction of
the fac,ades, the portals, the forms of the doors and windows.
The Rococo style was readily received in Germany, where it was
still further perverted into the arbitrary, unsymmetrical, and
unnatural, and remained in favour until 1770 (or even longer);
it found no welcome in England. In Italy a tendency towards the
Rococo style is evidenced by the Borrominik Guarini, and others.
The French themselves speak only of the Style Regence and Louis
XV, which, however, is by no means confined to this one
tendency.
To a race grown effeminate to the Baroque forms seemed too
coarse and heavy, the lines too straight and stiff, and whole
impression to weighty and forced. The small and the light,
sweeps and flourishes, caught the public taste; in the interiors
the architectonic had to yield to the picturesque, the curious,
an the whimsical. There develops a style for elegant parlours,
dainty sitting-rooms and boudoirs, drawing-rooms and libraries,
in which walls, ceiling, furniture, and works of metal and
porcelain present one ensemble of sportive, fantastic, and
sculptured forms. The horizontal lines are almost completely
superseded by curves and interruptions, the vertical varied at
least by knots; everywhere shell-like curves appear to a cusp;
the natural construction of the walls is concealed behind thick
stucco-framework; on the ceiling perhaps a glimpse of Olympus
enchants the view--all executed in a beautiful white or in
bright colour tones. All the simple laws and rules being set
aside in favour of free and enchanting imaginativeness, the
fancy received all the greater incentive to activity, and the
senses were the more keenly requisitioned. Everything vigorous
is banned, every suggestion of earnestness; nothing disturbs the
shallow repose of distinguished banality; the sportively
graceful and light appears side by side with the elegant and the
ingenious. The sculptor Bouchardon represented Cupid engaged in
carving his darts of love from the club of Hercules; this serves
as an excellent symbol of the Rococo style--the demigod is
transformed into the soft child, the bone-shattering club
becomes the heart-scathing arrows, just as marble is so freely
replaced by stucco. Effeminacy, softness, and caprice
attitudinize before us. In this connection, the French
sculptors, Robert le Lorrain, Michel Clodion, and Pigalle may be
mentioned in passing. For small plastic figures of gypsum, clay,
biscuit, porcelain (Sevres, Meissen), the gay Rococo is not
unsuitable; in wood, iron, and royal metal, it has created some
valuable works. However, confessionals, pulpits, altars, and
even fac,ades lead ever more into the territory of the
architectonic, which does not easily combine with the curves of
Rococo, the light and the petty, with forms whose whence and
wherefore baffle inquiry. Even as mere decoration on the walls
of the interiors the new forms could maintain their ground only
for a few decades. In France the sway of the Rococo practically
ceases with Oppenord (d. 1742) and Meissonier (d. 1750).
Inaugurated in some rooms in the Palace of Versailles, it
unfolds its magnificence in several Parisian buildings
(especially the Hotel Soubise). In Germany French and German
artists (Cuvillies, Neumann, Knobelesdorff, etc.) effected the
dignified equipment of the Amalienburg near Munich, and the
castles of Wurzburg, Potsdam, Charlottenburg, Bruehl, Bruchsal,
Schoenbrunn, etc. In France the style remained somewhat more
reserved, since the ornaments were mostly of wood, or, after the
fashion of wood-carving, less robust and naturalistic and less
exuberant in the mixture of natural with artificial forms of all
kinds (e.g. plant motives, stalactitic representations,
grotesques, masks, implements of various professions, badges,
paintings, precious stones). As elements of the beautiful France
retained, to a greater extent than Germany, the unity of the
whole scheme of decoration and the symmetry of its parts.
This style needs not only decorators, goldsmiths, and other
technicians, but also painters. The French painters of this
period reflect most truly the moral depression dating from the
time of Louis XIV, even the most deliberated among them
confining themselves to social portraits of high society and
depicting " gallant festivals", with their informal frivolous,
theatrically or modishly garbed society. The "beautiful
sensuality" is effected by masterly technique, especially in the
colouring, and to a great extent by quite immoral licenses or
mythological nudities as in loose or indelicate romances. As for
Watteau (1682-1721), the very titles of his works--e.g.
Conversation, Breakfast in the Open Air, Rural Pleasures,
Italian or French Comedians, Embarkment for the Island of
Cythera--indicate the spirit and tendency of his art. Add
thereto the figures in fashionable costume slim in head, throat,
and feet, in unaffected pose, represented amid enchanting, rural
scenery, painted in the finest colours, and we have a picture of
the high society of the period which beheld Louis XV and the
Pompadour. Franc,ois Boucher (1703-770) is the most celebrated
painter of ripe Rococo.
For the church Rococo may be, generally speaking, compared with
worldly church music. It lacks of simplicity, earnestness, and
repose is evident, while its obtrusive artificiality,
unnaturalness, and triviality have a distracting effect. Its
softness and prettiness likewise do not become the house of God.
However, shorn of its most grievous outgrowths, it may have been
less distracting during its proper epoch, since it then
harmonized with the spirit of the age. A development of Baroque,
it will be found a congruous decoration for baroque churches. In
general it makes a vast difference whether the style is used
with moderation in the finer and more ingenious form of the
French masters, or is carried to extremes with the consistency
of the German. The French artists seem ever to have regarded the
beauty of the whole composition as the chief object, while the
German laid most stress on the bold vigour of the lines; thus,
the lack of symmetry was never so exaggerated in the works of
the former. In the church Rococo may at times have the charm of
prettiness and may please by its ingenious technic, provided the
objects be small and subordinate a credence table with cruets
and plate, a vase, a choir desk, lamps, key and lock, railings
or balustrade, do not too boldly challenge the eye, and fulfil
(sic) all the requirements of mere beauty of form. Rococo is
indeed really empty, solely a pleasing play of the fancy. In the
sacristy (for presses etc.) and ante chambers it is m ore
suitable than in the church itself--at least so far as its
employment in conspicuous places is concerned.
The Rococo style accords very ill with the solemn office of the
monstrance, the tabernacle, and the altar, and even of the
pulpit. The naturalism of certain Belgian pulpits, in spite or
perhaps on account of their artistic character, has the same
effect as have outspoken Rococo creations. The purpose of the
confessional and the baptistery would also seem to demand more
earnest forms. In the case of the larger objects, the sculpture
of Rococo forms either seems pretty, or, if this prettiness be
avoided, resembles Baroque. The phantasies of this style agree
ill with the lofty and broad walls of the church. However,
everything must be decided according to the object and
circumstances; the stalls in the cathedral of Mainz elicit not
only our approval but also our admiration, while the celebrated
privilege d altar of Vierzehnheiligen repels us both by its
forms and its plastic decoration. Thee are certain Rococo
chalices (like that at the monastery of Einsiedeln which are, as
one might say, decked out in choice festive array; there are
others, which are more or less misshapen owing to their bulging
curves or figures. Chandeliers and lamps may also be disfigured
by obtrusive shellwork or want of all symmetry, or may amid
great decorativeness be kept within reasonable limits. The
material and technic are also of consequence in Rococo. Woven
materials, wood-carvings, and works in plaster of Paris are
evidently less obtrusive than works in other materials, when
they employ the sportive Rococo. Iron (especially in railings)
and bronze lose their coldness and hardness, when animated by
the Rococo style; in the case of the latter, gilding may be used
with advantage. Gilding and painting belong to the regular means
through which this style, under certain circumstances, enchants
the eye and fancy. All things considered, we may say of the
Rococo style--as has not unreasonably been said of the Baroque
and of the Renaissance--that it is very apt to introduce a
worldly spirit into the church, even if we overlook the figural
accessories, which are frequently in no way conducive to
sentiments of devotion, and are incompatible with the sobriety
and greatness of the architecture and with the seriousness of
sacred functions.
Ornaments Louis XV et du style Rocaille, reproduits d'apres les
originaux (Paris, 1890); Recueil des oeuvres de G. M. Oppenord
(Paris, 1888); Recueil des oeuvres de J. A. Meissonier (Paris,
1888); Gurlitt, Das Barock- u. Roko ko-Architektur; Jessen, Das
Ornament des Rokoko (Leipzig, 1894).
G. GIETMANN
Rodez
Rodez
(RUTHENAE)
The Diocese of Rodez was united to the Diocese of Cahors by the
Concordat of 1802, and again became an episcopal see by the
Concordat of 1817 and Bull of 1822, having jurisdiction over:
(1) the ancient Diocese of Rodez with the exception of the
deanery of Saint Antonin, incorporated with the Diocese of
Montauban; (2) the ancient Diocese of Vabres; (3) a few
scattered communes of the Diocese of Cahors. The Diocese of
Rodez corresponds exactly to the Department of Aveyron (formerly
Rouergue). It was suffragan of Bourges until 1676, then of Albi,
and has again been suffragan of Aibi since 1822. Modern
tradition attributes to St. Martial the foundation of the church
of Rodez and the sanctuary of the Blessed Virgin at Ceignac, for
according to Cardinal Bourret, the church of Rodez honoured St.
Martial as early as the sixth century (see Limoges). There were
bishops of Rodez before 675, as Sidonius Apollinaris mentions
that the Goths left it at that date without bishops. Amantius,
who ruled about the end of the fifth century, is the first
bishop mentioned. Among others are: S. Quintianua who assisted
at the Councils of Agde (508) and Orleans (511), afterwards
Bishop of Clermont; 8. Dalmatius (524-80); S. Gausbert (tenth
century), probably a Bishop of Cahors; Jean de Cardaillac
(1371-9); Patriarch of Alexandria, who fought against English
rule; Blessed Francis d'Estaing (1501-29), ambassador of Louis
XII to Juluis II; Louis Avelly (1664-6) who wrote the life of
St. Vincent of Paul; Joseph Bourret (1871-96), made Cardinal in
1893. The Benedictine Abbey of Vabres, founded in 862 by Raymond
I, Count of Toulouse, was raised to episcopal rank in 1317, and
its diocesan territory was taken from the southeastern portion
of the Diocese of Rodez. Some scholars hold that within the
limits of the modern Diocese of Rodez there existed in
Merovingian times the See of Arisitum which, according to Mgr
Duchesne, was in the neighbourhood of Alais.
During the Middle Ages the Bishop of Rodez held temporal
dominion over that portion of the town known as the Cite while
in the eleventh century the Bourg became the County of Rodez.
The cathedral of Rodez (thirteenth and fourteenth centuries) is
a beautiful Gothic building, famous for its belfry (1510-26) and
unique rood-beam. It was spared during the Revolution for
dedication to Marat. The town of Milhau adopted Calvinism in
1534, and in 1573 and 1620 was the scene of two large assemblies
of Protestant deputies. In 1629 Milhau and Saint-Afrique,
another Protestant stronghold, were taken and dismantled by
Louis XIII. In 1628 a pest at Villefranche carried off 8000
inhabitants within six months; Father Ambroise, a Franciscan,
and the chief of police Jean de Pomayrol saved the lives of many
little children by causing them to bo suckled by goats. The
Cistercian Abbeys of Silbanes, Beaulieu, Loc-Dieu, Bonneval, and
Bonnecombe were model-farms during the Middle Ages. Attacked by
brigands in the Rouergue country on his way to Santiago di
Compostella, Adalard, Viscount of Flanders, erected in 1031 a
monastery known as the Domerie d'Aubrac, a special order of
priests, knights, lay brothers, ladies, and lay sisters for the
care and protection of travellers. At Milhau, Rodez, Nazac, and
Bozouls, hospitals, styled "Commanderies", of this order of
Aubrac adopted the rule of St. Augustine in 1162.
The Diocese of Rodez is famous also through the Abbey of Conques
and the cult of Sainte Foy. Some Christians, flying from the
Saracens about 730, sought a refuge in the "Val Rocheux" of the
Dourdou and built an oratory there. In 790 the hermit Dadon made
this his abode and aided by Louis the Pious, then King of
Aquitaine, founded an abbey, which Louis named Conques. In 838
Pepin, King of Aquitaine, gave the monastery of Figeac to
Conques. Between 877 and 883 the monks carried off the body of
the youthful martyr Ste-Foy from the monastery of Sainte Foy to
Conques, where it became the object of a great pilgrimage. Abbot
Odolric built the abbey church between 1030 and 1060; on the
stonework over the doorway is carved the most artistic
representation in France of the Last Judgment. Abbot Begon
(1099-1118) enriched Conques with a superb reliquary of beaten
gold and cloisonne's enamels of a kind extremely rare in France.
Pascal II gave him permission for the name of Ste-Foy to be
inserted in the Canon of the Mass after the names of the Roman
virgins. At this time Conques, with Agen and Schelestadt in
Alsace, was the centre of the cult of Ste. Foy which soon spread
to England, Spain, and America where many towns bear the name of
Santa Fe^. The statute of Ste-Foy seated, which dated from the
tenth century, was originally a small wooden one covered with
gold leaf. In time, gems, enamels, and precious stones were
added in such quantities that it is a living treatise on the
history of the goldsmiths art in France between the eleventh and
sixteenth centuries. It was known during the Middle Ages as
"Majeste de Sainte Foy". The shrine enclosing the relics of the
Saint, which in 1590 was hidden in the masonry connecting the
pillars of the choir, was found in 1875, repaired, transferred
to the cathedral of Rodez for a novena, and brought back to
Conques, a distance of 25 miles, on the shoulders of the clergy.
Among Saints specially honoured in the Diocese of Rodez and
Vabres are: S. Antoninus of Pamiers, Apostle of the Rouergue
(date uncertain); S. Gratus and S. Ansutus, martyrs (fourth
century); S. Naamatius, deacon and confessor (end of fifth
century); Ste. Tarsicia, grand-daughter of Clothaire I and of
Ste-Radegunda, who retired to the Rouergue to lead an ascetic
life (sixth century); S. Africanus, wrongly styled Bishop of
Comminges, who died in the Rouergue (sixth century); S.
Hilarianus, martyred by the Saracens in the time of Charlemagne
(eighth and ninth century); S. George, a monk in the Diocese of
Vabres, afterwards Bishop of Lodeve (877); 8. Guasbert, founder
and first abbot of the monastery of Montsalvy in the modern
Diocese of St. Flour (eleventh century). Among natives of the
diocese are: Cardinal Bernard of Milhau, Abbot of St. Victor's
at Marseilles in 1063, and legate of Gregory VII; Theodatus de
Gozon (d. 1353) and John of La Valetta (1494-1568), grand
masters of the order of St. John of Jerusalem; the former is
famous for his victory over the dragon of Rhodes, the latter for
his heroic defence of Malta; Frassinous (1765-1841), preacher
and minister of worship under the Restoration; Bonald
(1754-1840) and Laromiguiere (1736-1837), philosophers; Affre
(1793-1848), born at St. Rome de Tarn and slain at the
Barricades as Archbishop of Paris. The chief shrines of the
diocese are: Notre Dame de Ceignac, an ancient shrine rebuilt
and enlarged in 1455, which over 15,000 pilgrims visit annually;
Notre Dame du Saint Voile at Coupiac, another ancient shrine;
Notre Dame des Treize Pierres at Villefranche, a pilgrimage
dating from 1509.
Before the application of the Associations' Law in 1901, there
were in the Diocese of Rodez, Capuchins, Jesuits, Trappists,
Peres Blancs, Premonstratensians, Fathers of Picpus, Sulpicians,
Clerics of St. Victor, and many congregations of teaching
brothers. This diocese furnishes more missionaries than any
other in France. Of the numerous congregations for women which
had their origin there, the principal are: affiliations of the
Sisters of St. Francis of Sales, known as the Union, teaching
orders founded in 1672, 1698, 1739, 1790, with mother-houses at
St-Geniez, d'Olt, Bozouls, Lavernhe, Auzits; the Sisters of St.
Joseph, founded in 1682 for teaching and district nursing, with
mother-house at Marcillac, and other sisters of the same name,
united in 1822, 1824, 1856, with mother-houses at Milhau,
Villecomtal, Salles-la-Source; the Sisters of the Holy Family, a
teaching and nursing order, founded in 1816 by Emilie de Rodat,
with mother-house at Villefranche and many convents throughout
the diocese; the Minim Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary
founded in 1844 by Mile. Chauchard, with mother-house at
Crujouls, for the care of the sick and children of the working
classes; wo branches of Dominican Sisters, teaching orders,
founded in 1843 and 1849 with mother-houses at Gramond and
Bor-et-Bar; the Sisters of the Union of Ste-Foy, teaching and
nursing nuns, founded in 1682 with mother-house at Rodez. At the
close of the nineteenth century the religious congregations of
the diocese had charge of 75 nurseries; 1 institute for the deaf
and dumb; 3 orphanages for boys; 13 orphanages for girls; 2
houses of rescue; 2 houses of mercy; 1 economic bakery; 83
houses of religious women devoted to the care of the sick in
their own homes; 3 hospitals. At the end of 1909 the diocese had
a population of 377,299, 51 parishes, 617 auxiliary parishes,
287 curacies, and 1200 priests.
Gallia Christiana, Nova (1715), I, 195-234; Instrumenta, 49-55,
203; DUCHESNE, Pastes Episcopaux, II, 39-41; SICARD, Ruthena
Christiana, ed. MAISONABE in Memoires de la societe des lettres,
sciences et arts de V Avyron, XIV (Rodez, 1893), 331-447;
BOURRET, Documents sur les origines chretiennes de Rouergue.
Saint Martial (Rodez, 1902); SERVIERES, Les Saints du Rouergue
(Rodez, 1872); IDEM, Histoire de l'Eglise du Rouergue (Rodez,
1875); BOUILLET AND SERVIERES, Sainte Foy merge et martyre
(Rodez, 1900); GRIMALDI, Les Benefices du. Diocese de Rodez
avant la Revolution de 1789 (Rodez, 1906); DE MARLAVAGNE,
Histoire de la cathedrals de Rodez (Rodez, 1876); BOCSQUET,
Tableau chronologique et biograph. des cardinaux, archeveques et
eveques originaires du Rouergue (Rodez, 1850); CALMET, L'abbaye
de Vabres et son erection en eveche in Ann. de St. Louis des
Franc,ais (1898).
GEORGES GOYAU
Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira
Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira
A Brazilian natural scientist and explorer, b. at Bahia in 1756;
d. at Lisbon in 1815. He was sent to Portugal for his training,
and there studied at the University of Coimbra. After taking his
degrees, he taught natural history subjects for a time at his
Alma Mater, until in 1778 he was called to Lisbon to work in the
Museo da Ajuda. He devoted his time for the next five years to
cataloguing the various specimens contained in the museum, and
to the writing of learned monographs and reports. As a result of
his efforts he was elected a Corresponding Member of the Academy
of Sciences at Lisbon. The Portuguese Government empowered him
to engineer a journey of exploration for scientific purposes in
the interior of his native land. He entered upon this expedition
in 1783 and spent nine years in it. First examining the Island
of Marajo, since important for the production of rubber, he
crossed to the mainland, and followed the course of the Amazon
and its tributaries, studying the natives, their languages and
customs, and the fauna and flora of a vast region. On account of
the energy and skill with which he conducted his investigations
he became known as the Brazilian Humboldt. From 1793 until his
death he was in Lisbon, acting as Director of the Gabinete de
Historia Natural and of the Jardim Botanico. Most of the records
of his Brazilian explorations seem to have passed from view.
J.D.M. FORD
Alonso Rodriguez
Alonso Rodriguez
Born at Valladolid, Spain, 1526; died at Seville 21 February,
1616. When twenty years of age he entered the Society of Jesus,
and after completing his studies taught moral theology for
twelve years at the College of Monterey, and subsequently filled
the posts of master of novices for twelve more years, of rector
for seventeen years, and of spiritual father at Cordova for
eleven years. As master of novices he had under his charge
Francis Suarez, the celebrated theologian. Alonso's
characteristics in these offices were care, diligence, and
charity. He was a religious of great piety and candour, hating
all pride and ostentation. It was said of him by those who were
personally acquainted with him, that his character and virtues
were accurately depicted in "The Practice of Christian and
Religious Perfection", published at Seville, 1609. This work is
based on the material which he colected for his spiritual
exhortations tohis brethren, and published at the request of his
superiors. Although the book thus written was primarily intended
for the use of his religious brethren, yet he destined it also
for the profit and edification of other religious and of laymen
in the world. Of set purpose it avoids the loftier flights of
mysticism and all abstruse speculation. It is a book of
practical instructions on all the virtues which go to make up
the perfect Christian life, whether lived in the cloister or in
the world. It became popular at once, and it is much used to-day
by all classes of Christians as it was when it first became
known. More than twenty-five edtions of the original Spanish
have been issued, besides extracts and abridgements. Moe than
sixty editions have appeared in French in seven different
translations, twenty in Italian, at least ten in German, and
eight in Latin. An English translation from the French by Fr.
Antony Hoskins, S.J., was printed at St. Omer in 1612. The best
known English translation, often reprinted, is that which first
appeared in London, 1697, from the French of Abbe Regnier des
Marais. P.O. Shea issued in New York an edition adapted to
general use in 1878. The book has been translated into nearly
all the European languages and into many of those of the East.
No other work of the author was published. Gilmary Shea left a
translation of the work which has never been published.
CORDARA, Historiae Societatis Jesu: Pars Sexta, I (Rome, 1750);
DE GUILHERMY, Menologe de la C. de J., Assistance d'Espagne, I
(Paris, 1902), 321; a short life is prefixed to the English
translation of The Practice of Christian and Religious
Perfection (Dublin, 1861); SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., VI
(Paris, 1895).
T. SLATER
Joao Rodriguez
Joao Rodriguez
(GIRAM, GIRAO, GIRON, ROIZ).
Missionary and author, b. at Alcochete in the Diocese of Lisbon
in 1558; d. in Japan in 1633. He entered the Society of Jesus on
16 December, 1576, and in 1583 began his missionary labours in
Japan. His work was facilitated by his winning the esteem of the
Emperor Taicosama. He studied the Japanese language ardently,
and is particularly known for his efforts to make it accessible
to the Western nations. His Japanese grammar ranks among the
important linguistic productions of the Jesuit missionaries.
Published at Nagasaki in 1604 under the title "Arte da lingoa de
Japam", it appeared in 1624 in an abridged form at Macao: "Arte
breve da lingoa japoa"; from the manuscript of this abridgement
preserved in the National Library in Paris, the Asiatic Society
prepared a French edition of the work: "Elements de la grammaire
japonaise par le P. Rodriguez" (Paris, 1825). Rodriguez compiled
also a Japanese-Portuguese dictionary (Nagasaki, 1603), later
adapted to the French by Pages (Paris, 1862).
REMUSAT, in Nouv. Melanges asiat., I (Paris, 1829), 354-57;
GANSEN, in Buchberger=1Cs Handlexikon, s. v.
N.A. WEBER
Bartholomew Roe
Bartholomew Roe
(VENERABLE ALBAN).
English Benedictine martyr, b. in Suffolk, 1583; executed at
Tyburn, 21 Jan., 1641. Educated in Suffolk and at Cambridge; he
became converted through a visit to a Catholic prisoner at St.
Albans which unsettled his religious views. He was admitted as a
convictor into the English College at Douai, entered the English
Benedictine monastery at Dieulward where he was professed in
1612, and, after ordination, went to the mission in 1615. From
1618 to 1623 he was imprisoned in the New Prison, Maiden Lane,
whence he was banished and went to the English Benedictine house
at Douai but returned to England after four months. He was again
arrested in 1625, and was imprisoned for two months at St.
Albans, then in the Fleet whence he was frequently liberated on
parole, and finally in Newgate. He was condemned a few days
before his execution under the statute 27 Eliz. e. 2, for being
a priest. With him suffered Thomas Greene, aged eighty, who on
the mission had taken the name of Reynolds. He was probably
descended from the Greenes of Great Milton, Oxfordshire, and the
Reynoldses of Old Stratford, Warwickshire, and was ordained
deacon at Reims in 1590, and priest at Seville. He had lived
under sentence of death for fourteen years, and was executed
without fresh trial. They were drawn on the same hurdle, where
they heard each other's confessions, and were hanged
simultaneously on the same gibbet amidst great demonstrations of
popular sympathy.
GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., III, 36; V, 437; CHALLONER,
Missionary Priests, II, nos. 166, 167; POLLEN, Acts of the
English Martyrs (London, 1891), 339-43.
JOHN B. WAINWRIGHT
Roermond
Roermond
(RUBAEMUNDENSIS).
Diocese in Holland; suffragan of Utrecht. It includes the
Province of Limburg, and in 1909 had 332,201 inhabitants, among
whom were 325,000 Catholics. The diocese has a cathedral chapter
with 9 canons, 14 deaneries, 173 parishes, 197 churches with
resident priests, an ecclesiastical seminary at Roermond, a
preparatory seminary for boys at Rolduc, about 70 Catholic
primary schools, 2 Catholic preparatory gymnasia, 1 training
college for male teachers, 24 schools for philosophical,
theological, and classical studies, 35 higher schools for girls,
about 60 charitable institutions, 45 houses of religious (men)
with about 2400 members, and 130 convents with 3900 sisters.
Among the orders and congregations of men in the diocese are:
Jesuits, the Society of the Divine Word of Steyl, Brothers of
the Immaculate Conception, Redemptorists, Marists, Reformed
Cistercians, Dominicans, Benedictines, Oblates of Mary
Immaculate, Brothers of Mercy, Poor Brothers of St. Francis,
Conventuals, Calced Carmelites, Missionaries of Africa, Priests
of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Brothers of the Seven Sorrows of
the Blessed Virgin Mary, Brothers of St. Francis, Brothers of
St. Joseph, the Society of Mary, the Congregation of the Sacred
Heart of Jesus, the Congregation of the Divine Spirit, and the
Congregation of Missions. Among the female orders and
congregations are: Benedictines, Brigittines, Ursulines, Sisters
of St. Charles Borromeo, Sisters of Tilburg, Sisters of the
Child Jesus, Sisters of St. Francis, Sisters of the Divine
Providence, Sisters of Mercy etc.
The Diocese of Roermond was established in 1559, during the
reign of Philip II, when after long and difficult negotiations
with the papacy the dioceses of the Netherlands were
reorganized. By these negotiations all jurisdiction of foreign
bishops, e.g. that of the Archbishop of Cologne, came to an end.
In this way the Diocese of Roermond, the boundaries of which
were settled in 1561, became a suffragan of Mechlin. The
reorganization of the dioceses, however, met with violent
opposition, partly from bishops to whose territories the new
dioceses had formerly belonged, partly from a number of abbots
whose abbeys were incorporated in the new bishoprics. Much
difficulty was also caused by the rapid growth of Calvinism in
the Netherlands. In Roermond the first bishop, Lindanus, who was
consecrated in 1563, could not enter upon his duties until 1569;
notwithstanding his zeal and charitableness he was obliged to
retire on account of the revolutionary movement; he died Bishop
of Ghent. The episcopal see remained vacant until 1591; at later
periods also, on account of the political turmoils, the see was
repeatedly vacant. In 1801 the diocese was suppressed; the last
bishop, Johann Baptist Baron van Velde de Melroy, died in 1824.
When in 1839 the Duchy of Limburg became once more a part of the
Netherlands, Gregory XVI separated (2 June, 1840) that part of
Limburg which had been incorporated in the Diocese of Louvain in
1802, and added to this territory several new parishes which had
formerly belonged to the Diocese of Aachen, and formed thus the
Vicariate Apostolic of Roermond, over which the parish priest of
Roermond, Johann August Paredis, was placed as vicar Apostolic
and titular Bishop of Hirene. In 1841 a seminary for priests was
established in the former Carthusian monastery of Roermond,
where the celebrated Dionysius the Carthusian had been a monk.
Upon the re-establishment of the Dutch hierarchy in 1853 the
Vicariate-Apostolic of Roermond was raised to a bishopric and
made a suffragan of Utrecht. The first bishop of the new diocese
was Paredis. In 1858 a cathedral chapter was formed; in 1867 a
synod was held, the first since 1654; in 1876 the administration
of the church property was transferred, by civil law, to the
bishop. During the Kulturkampf in Germany a number of
ecclesiastical dignitaries driven out of Prussia found a
hospitable welcome and opportunities for further usefulness in
the Diocese of Roermond; among these churchmen were Melchers of
Cologne, Brinkmann of Munster, and Martin of Paderborn. Bishop
Paredis was succeeded by Franziskus Boreman (1886-1900), on
whose death the present bishop, Joseph Hubertus Drehmann, was
appointed.
Gallia Christiana, V, 371 sqq.: Neerlandia catholica seu
provinciae Utrajectensis historia et conditio (Utrecht, 1888),
263-335; ALBERS, Geschiedenis van het herstel der hierarchie in
de Nederlanden (Nymwegen, 1893-4); MEERDINCK, Roermond in de
Middeleeuwen; Onze Pius Almanak. Jaarboek voor de Katholiken van
Nederland (Alkmaar, 1910), 338 sqq.
JOSEPH LINS
Rogation Days
Rogation Days
Days of prayer, and formerly also of fasting, instituted by the
Church to appease God's anger at man's transgressions, to ask
protection in calamities, and to obtain a good and bountiful
harvest, known in England as "Gang Days" and "Cross Week", and
in Germany as Bittage, Bittwoche, Kreuzwoche. The Rogation Days
were highly esteemed in England and King Alfred's laws
considered a theft committed on these days equal to one
committed on Sunday or a higher Church Holy Day. Their
celebration continued even to the thirteenth year of Elizabeth,
1571, when one of the ministers of the Established Church
inveighed against the Rogation processions, or Gang Days, of
Cross Week. The ceremonial may be found in the Council of
Clovesho (Thorpe, Ancient Laws, I, 64; Hefele,
Conciliengeschichte, III, 564).
The Rogation Days are the 25th of April, called Major, and the
three days before the feast of the Ascension, called Minor. The
Major Rogation, which has no connexion with the feast of St.
Mark (fixed for this date much later) seems to be of very early
date and to have been introduced to counteract the ancient
Robigalia, on which the heathens held processions and
supplications to their gods. St. Gregory the Great (d. 604)
regulated the already existing custom. The Minor Rogations were
introduced by St. Mamertus, Bishop of Vienne, and were
afterwards ordered by the Fifth Council of Orleans, which was
held in 511, and then approved by Leo III (795-816). This is
asserted by St. Gregory of Tours in "Hist. Franc.", II, 34, by
St. Avitus of Vienne in his "Hom. de Rogat." (P.L., LVIII, 563),
by Ado of Vienne (P. L., CXXIII, 102), and by the Roman
Martyrology. Sassi, in "Archiepiscopi Mediolanenses", ascribes
their introduction at an earlier date to St. Lazarus. This is
also held by the Bollandist Henschen in "Acta SS.", II, Feb.,
522. The liturgical celebration now consists in the procession
and the Rogation Mass. For 25 April the Roman Missal gives the
rubric: "If the feast of St. Mark is transferred, the procession
is not transferred. In the rare case of 25 April being Easter
Sunday [1886, 1943], the procession is held not on Sunday but on
the Tuesday following".
The order to be observed in the procession of the Major and
Minor Rogation is given in the Roman Ritual, title X, ch. iv.
After the antiphon "Exurge Domine", the Litany of the Saints is
chanted and each verse and response is said twice. After the
verse "Sancta Maria" the procession begins to move. If
necessary, the litany may be repeated, or some of the
Penitential or Gradual Psalms added. For the Minor Rogations the
"Ceremoniale Episcoporum", book II, ch. xxxii, notes: "Eadem
serventur sed aliquid remissius". If the procession is held, the
Rogation Mass is obligatory, and no notice is taken of whatever
feast may occur, unless only one Mass is said, for then a
commemoration is made of the feast. An exception is made in
favour of the patron or titular of the church, of whom the Mass
is said with a commemoration of the Rogation. The colour used in
the procession and Mass is violet. The Roman Breviary gives the
instruction: "All persons bound to recite the Office, and who
are not present at the procession, are bound to recite the
Litany, nor can it be anticipated".
ROCK, The Church of Our Fathers, III (London, 1904), 181;
DUCHESNE, Chr. Worship (tr. London, 1904), 288; BINTERIM,
Denkwurdigkeiten; AMBERGER, Pastoraltheologie, II, 834; VAN DER
STEPPEN, Sacra Liturgia, IV, 405; NILLES, Kalendarium Manuale
(Innsbruck, 1897).
FRANCIS MERSHMAN
Roger, Bishop of Worcester
Roger, Bishop of Worcester
Died at Tours, 9 August, 1179. A younger son of Robert, Earl of
Gloucester, he was educated with the future king, Henry II,
afterwards ordained priest, and consecrated Bishop of Worcester
by St. Thomas of Canterbury, 23 Aug., 1163. He adhered loyally
to St. Thomas, and though one of the bishops sent to the pope to
carry the king's appeal against the archbishop, he took no
active part in the embassy, nor did he join the appeal made by
the bishops against the archbishop in 1166, thus arousing the
enmity of the king. When St. Thomas desired Roger to join him in
his exile, Roger went without leave (1167), Henry having refused
him permission. He boldly reproached the king when they met at
Falaise in 1170, and a reconciliation followed. After the
martyrdom of St. Thomas, England was threatened with an
interdict, but Roger interceded with the pope and was thereafter
highly esteemed in England and at Rome. Alexander III, who
frequently employed him as delegate in ecclesiastical causes,
spoke of him and Bartholomew, Bishop of Exeter, as "the two
great lights of the English Church".
Materials for the History of Archbishop Becket in R. S. (London,
1875-85); GERVASE OF CANTERBUBY, Hist. Works in R. S. (London,
1879-80); DE DICETO, Opera Hist. in R. S. (London, 1876); P. L.,
CXCIX 365, gives one of his letters to Alexander III; GILES,
Life and Letters of Becket (London, 1846); HOPE, Life of St.
Thomas d Becket (London, 1868); MORRIS, Life of St. Thomas
Becket (London, 1885); NORGATE in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.
EDWIN BURTON
Roger Bacon
Roger Bacon
Philosopher, surnamed Doctor Mirabilis, b. at Ilchester,
Somersetshire, about 1214; d. at Oxford, perhaps 11 June, 1294.
His wealthy parents sided with Henry III against the rebellious
barons, but lost nearly all their property. It has been presumed
that Robert Bacon, O.P., was Roger's brother; more probably he
was his uncle. Roger made his higher studies at Oxford and
Paris, and was later professor at Oxford (Franciscan school). He
was greatly influenced by his Oxonian masters and friends
Richard Fitzacre and Edmund Rich, but especially by Robert
Grosseteste and Adam Marsh, both professors at the Franciscan
school, and at Paris by the Franciscan Petrus Peregrinus de
Maricourt (see Schlund in "Archiv. Francisc. Histor.", IV, 1911,
pp. 436 sqq.) They created in him a predilection for positive
sciences, languages, and physics; and to the last-mentioned he
owed his entrance about 1240 (1251? 1257?) into the Franciscans,
either at Oxford or Paris. He continued his learned work;
illness, however, compelled him to give it up for two years.
When he was able to recommence his studies, his superiors
imposed other duties on him, and forbade him to publish any work
out of the order without special permission from the higher
superiors "under pain of losing the book and of fasting several
days with only bread and water."
This prohibition has induced modern writers to pass severe
judgment upon Roger's superiors being jealous of Roger's
abilities; even serious scholars say they can hardly understand
how Bacon conceived the idea of joining the Franciscan Order.
Such critics forget that when Bacon entered the order the
Franciscans numbered many men of ability in no way inferior to
the most famous scholars of other religious orders (see Felder,
"Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Studien im Franziskanerorden bis
um die Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts", Freiburg, 1904). The
prohibition enjoined on Bacon was a general one, which extended
to the whole order; its promulgation was not even directed
against him, but rather against Gerard of Borgo San Donnino, as
Salimbene says expressly (see "Chronica Fr. Salimbene Parmensis"
in "Mon. Germ. Hist." SS.", XXII, 462, ed. Holder-Egger). Gerard
had published in 1254 without permission his heretical work,
"Introductorius in Evangelium aeternum"; thereupon the General
Chapter of Narbonne in 1260 promulgated the above-mentioned
decree, identical with the "constitutio gravis in contrarium"
Bacon speaks of, as the text shows (see the constitution
published by Ehrle, S.J., "Die aeltesten Redactionen der
Generalconstitutionen des Franziskanerordens" in "Archiv fuer
Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters", VI, 110; St.
Bonaventure, "Opera Omnia", Quaracchi, VIII, 456).
We need not wonder then that Roger's immediate superiors put the
prohibition into execution, especially as Bacon was not always
very correct in doctrine; and although on the one hand it is
wrong to consider him as a necromancer and astrologer, an enemy
of scholastic philosophy, an author full of heresies and
suspected views, still we cannot deny that some of his
expressions are imprudent and inaccurate. The judgments he
passes on other scholars of his day are sometimes too hard, so
it is not surprising that his friends were few. The
above-mentioned prohibition was rescinded in Roger's favour
unexpectedly in 1266. Some years before, while still at Oxford,
he had made the acquaintance of Cardinal Guy le Gros de
Foulques, whom Urban IV had sent to England to settle the
disputes between Henry III and the barons; others believe that
the cardinal met Roger at Paris, in 1257 or 1258 (see "Archiv.
Francisc. Histor.", IV, 442). After a conference about some
current abuses, especially about ecclesiastical studies, the
cardinal asked Roger to present his idea in writing. Roger
delayed in doing this; when the Cardinal became Clement IV and
reiterated his desire, Bacon excused himself because the
prohibition of his superiors stood in the way. Then the pope in
a letter from Viterbo (22 June, 1266) commanded him to send his
work immediately, notwithstanding the prohibition of superiors
or any general constitution whatsoever, but to keep the
commission a secret (see letter published by Martene-Durand,
"Thesaurus novus anecdotorum", II, Paris, 1717, 358, Clement IV,
epp. n. 317 a; Wadding, "Annales", ad an. 1266, n. 14, II, 294;
IV, 265; Sbaralea, "Bullarium Franciscanum", III, 89 n. 8f, 22
June, 1266).
We may suppose that the pope, as Bacon says, from the first had
wished the matter kept secret; otherwise we can hardly
understand why Bacon did not get permission of his superiors;
for the prohibition of Narbonne was not absolute; it only
forbade him to publish works outside the order "unless they were
examined thoroughly by the minister general or by the provincial
together with his definitors in the provincial chapter". The
removal of the prohibitive constitution did not at once remove
all the obstacles; the secrecy of the matter rather produced new
embarrassments, as Bacon frankly declares. The first impediment
was the contrary will of his superiors: "as your Holiness", he
writes to the pope, "did not write to them to excuse me, and I
could not make known to them Your secret, because You had
commanded me to keep the matter a secret, they did not let me
alone but charged me with other labours; but it was impossible
for me to obey because of Your commandment". Another difficulty
was the lack of money necessary to obtain parchment and to pay
copyists. As the superiors knew nothing of his commission, Bacon
had to devise means to obtain money. Accordingly, he ingenuously
reminded the pope of this oversight, "As a monk", he says, "I
for myself have no money and cannot have; therefore I cannot
borrow, not having wherewith to return; my parents who before
were rich, now in the troubles of war have run into poverty;
others, who were able refused to spend money; so deeply
embarrassed, I urged my friends and poor people to expend all
they had, to sell and to pawn their goods, and I could not help
promising them to write to You and induce Your Holiness to fully
reimburse the sum spent by them (60 pounds)" ("Opus Tertium",
III, p. 16).
Finally, Bacon was able to execute the pope's desire; in the
beginning of 1267 he sent by his pupil John of Paris (London?)
the "Opus Majus", where he puts together in general lines all
his leading ideas and proposals; the same friend was instructed
to present to the pope a burning-mirror and several drawings of
Bacon appertaining to physics, and to give all explanations
required by His Holiness. The same year (1267) he finished his
"Opus Minus", a recapitulation of the main thoughts of the "Opus
Majus", to facilitate the pope's reading or to submit to him an
epitome of the first work if it should be lost. With the same
object, and because in the first two works some ideas were but
hastily treated, he was induced to compose a third work, the
"Opus Tertium"; in this, sent to the pope before his death
(1268), he treats in a still more extensive manner the whole
material he had spoken of in his preceding works. Unfortunately
his friend Clement IV died too soon, without having been able to
put into practice the counsels given by Bacon. About the rest of
Roger's life we are not well informed. The "Chronica XXIV
Generalium Ordinis Minorum" says that "the Minister General
Jerome of Ascoli [afterwards Pope Nicholas IV] on the advice of
many brethren condemned and rejected the doctrine of the English
brother Roger Bacon, Doctor of Divinity, which contains many
suspect innovations, by reason of which Roger was imprisoned"
(see the "Chronica" printed in "Analecta Franciscana", III,
360). The assertion of modern writers, that Bacon was imprisoned
fourteen or fifteen years, although he had proved his orthodoxy
by the work "De nullitate magiae", has no foundation in ancient
sources.
Some authors connect the fact of imprisonment related in the
"Chronica" with the proscription of 219 theses by Stephen
Tempier, Bishop of Paris, which took place 7 March, 1277
(Denifle, "Chartularium Universitatis Pariensis", I, 543, 560).
Indeed it was not very difficult to find some "suspect
innovation" in Bacon's writings, especially with regard to the
physical sciences. As F. Mandonnet, O.P., proves, one of his
incriminated books or pamphlets was his "Speculum Astronomiae",
written in 1277, hitherto falsely ascribed to Blessed Albert the
Great [Opera Omnia, ed. Vives, Paris, X, 629 sq.; cf. Mandonnet,
"Roger Bacon et le Speculum Astronomiae (1277) in "Revue
Neo-Scolastique", XVII, Louvain, 1910, 313-35]. Such and other
questions are not yet ripe for judgment; but it is to be hoped
that the newly awakened interest in Baconian studies and
investigations will clear up more and more what is still obscure
in Roger's life.
The writings attributed to Bacon by some authors amount to about
eighty; many (e.g. "Epistola de magnete", composed by Petrus
Peregrinus de Maricourt) are spurious, while many are only
treatises republished separately under new titles. Other
writings or parts of writings certainly composed by him were put
in circulation under the name of other scholars, and his claim
to their authorship can be established only from internal
reasons of style and doctrine. Other treatises still lie in the
dust of the great European libraries, especially of England,
France, and Italy. Much remains to be done before we can expect
an edition of the "Opera Omnia" of Roger Bacon. For the present
the following statements may suffice. Before Bacon entered the
order he had written many essays and treatises on the subjects
he taught in the school, for his pupils only, or for friends who
had requested him to do so, as he confesses in his letter of
dedication of the "Opus Majus" sent to the pope: "Multa in alio
statu conscripseram propter juvenum rudimenta" (the letter was
discovered in the Vatican Library by Abbot Gasquet, O.S.B., and
first published by him in the "English Historical Review", 1897,
under the title "An unpublished fragment of a work by Roger
Bacon", 494 sq.; for the words above cited, see p. 500). To this
period seem to belong some commentaries on the writings of
Aristotle and perhaps the little treatise "De mirabili potestate
artis et naturae et de nullitate magiae" (Paris, 1542; Oxford,
1604; London, 1859). The same work was printed under the title
"Epistola de secretis operibus artis et naturae" (Hamburg, 1608,
1618). After joining the order, or more exactly from about the
years 1256-57, he did not compose works of any great importance
or extent, but only occasional essays requested by friends, as
he says in the above-mentioned letter, "now about this science,
now about another one", and only more transitorio (see "Eng.
Hist. Rev.", 1897, 500). In the earlier part of his life he
probably composed also "De termino pascali" (see letter of
Clement IV in "Bull. Franc.", III, 89); for it is cited in
another work, "Computus naturalium", assigned to 1263 by Charles
("Roger Bacon. Sa vie, etc.", Paris, 1861, p. 78; cf. pp. 334
sqq.).
The most important of all his writings are the "Opus Majus", the
"Opus Minus", and the "Tertium". The "Opus Majus" deals in seven
parts with (1) the obstacles to real wisdom and truth, viz.
errors and their sources; (2) the relation between theology and
philosophy, taken in its widest sense as comprising all sciences
not strictly philosophical: here he proves that all sciences are
founded on the sacred sciences, especially on Holy Scripture;
(3) the necessity of studying zealously the Biblical languages,
as without them it is impossible to bring out the treasure
hidden in Holy Writ; (4) mathematics and their relation and
application to the sacred sciences, particularly Holy Scripture;
here he seizes an opportunity to speak of Biblical geography and
of astronomy (if these parts really belong to the "Opus Majus");
(5) optics or perspective; (6) the experimental sciences; (7)
moral philosophy or ethics. The "Opus Majus" was first edited by
Samuel Jebb, London, 1733, afterwards at Venice, 1750, by the
Franciscan Fathers. As both editions were incomplete, it was
edited recently by J. H. Bridges, Oxford, 1900 (The 'Opus Majus'
of Roger Bacon, edited with introduction and analytical table,"
in 2 vols.); the first three parts of it were republished the
same year by this author in a supplementary volume, containing a
more correct and revised text. It is to be regretted that this
edition is not so critical and accurate as it might have been.
As already noted, Bacon's letter of dedication to the pope was
found and published first by Dom Gasquet; indeed the dedication
and introduction is wanting in the hitherto extant editions of
the "Opus Majus", whereas the "Opus Minus" and "Opus Tertium"
are accompanied with a preface by Bacon (see "Acta Ord. Min.",
Quaracchi, 1898, where the letter is reprinted).
Of the "Opus Minus", the relation of which to the "Opus Majus"
has been mentioned, much has been lost. Originally it had nine
parts, one of which must have been a treatise on alchemy, both
speculative and practical; there was another entitled "The seven
sins in the study of theology". All fragments hitherto found
have been published by J. S. Brewer, "Fr. R. Bacon opp. quaedam
hactenus inedita", vol. I (the only one) containing: (1) "Opus
Tertium"; (2) "Opus Minus"; (3) "Compendium Philos." The
appendix adds "De secretis artis et naturae operibus et de
nullitate magiae", London, 1859 (Rerum Britann. med. aev.
Script.). The aim of the "Opus Tertium" is clearly pointed out
by Bacon himself: "As these reasons [profoundness of truth and
its difficulty] have induced me to compose the Second Writing as
a complement facilitating the understanding of the First Work,
so on account of them I have written this Third Work to give
understanding and completeness to both works; for many things
are here added for the sake of wisdom which are not found in the
other writings ("Opus Tertium", I, ed. Brewer, 6). Consequently
this work must be considered, in the author's own opinion, as
the most perfect of all the compositions sent to the pope;
therefore it is a real misfortune that half of it is lost. The
parts we possess contain many autobiographical items. All parts
known in 1859 were published by Brewer (see above). One fragment
dealing with natural sciences and moral philosophy has been
edited for the first time by Duhem ("Un fragment inedit de
l'Opus Tertium de Roger Bacon precede d'une etude sur ce
fragment", Quaracchi, 1909); another (Quarta pars communium
naturalis philos.) by Hoever (Commer's "Jahrb. fuer Philos. u.
speculative Theol.", XXV, 1911, pp. 277-320). Bacon often speaks
of his "Scriptum principale". Was this a work quite different
from the others we know? In many texts the expression only means
the "Opus Majus", as becomes evident by its antithesis to the
"Opus Minus" and "Opus Tertium". But there are some other
sentences where the expression seems to denote a work quite
different from the three just mentioned, viz. one which Bacon
had the intention of writing and for which these works as well
as his proeambula were only the preparation.
If we may conclude from some of his expressions we can
reconstruct the plan of this grand encyclopaedia: it was
conceived as comprising four volumes, the first of which was to
deal with grammar (of the several languages he speaks of) and
logic; the second with mathematics (arithmetic and geometry),
astronomy, and music; the third with natural sciences,
perspective, astrology, the laws of gravity, alchemy,
agriculture, medicine, and the experimental sciences; the fourth
with metaphysics and moral philosophy (see Delorme in "Dict. de
Theol.", s. v. Bacon, Roger; Brewer, pp. 1 sq.; Charles, 370
sq., and particularly Bridges, I, xliii sq.). It is even
possible that some treatises, the connection of which with the
three works ("Opus Majus", "Opus Minus", "Opus Tertium") or
others is not evident, were parts of the "Scriptum principale";
see Bridges, II, 405 sq., to which is added "Tractatus Fr.
Rogeri Bacon de multiplicatione specierum", which seems to have
belonged originally to a work of greater extent. Here may be
mentioned some writings hitherto unknown, now for the first time
published by Robert Steele: "Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri
Baconi. Fasc. I: Metaphysica Fratris Rogeri ordinis fratrum
minorum. De viciis contractis in studio theologiae, omnia quae
supersunt nunc primum edidit R. St.", London, 1905; Fasc. II:
Liber primus communium naturalium Fratris Rogeri, partes I et
II", Oxford, 1909. Another writing of Bacon, "Compendium studii
philosophiae", was composed during the pontificate of Gregory X
who succeeded Clement IV (1271-76), as Bacon speaks of this
last-named pope as the "predecessor istius Papae" (chap. iii).
It has been published, as far as it is extant, by Brewer in the
above-mentioned work. He repeats there the ideas already touched
upon in his former works, as for instance the causes of human
ignorance, necessity of learning foreign languages, especially
Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek; as a specimen are given the elements
of Greek grammar.
About the same time (1277) Bacon wrote the fatal "Speculum
Astronomiae" mentioned above. And two years before his death he
composed his "compendium studii theologiae" (in our days
published for the first time in "British Society of Franciscan
Studies", III, Aberdeen, 1911), where he set forth as in a last
scientific confession of faith the ideas and principles which
had animated him during his long life; he had nothing to revoke,
nothing to change. Other works and pamphlets cannot be
attributed with certainty to any definite period of his life. To
this category belong the "Epistola de laude Scripturarum",
published in part by Henry Wharton in the appendix (auctarium)
of "Jacobi Usserii Armachani Historia Dogmatica de Scripturis et
sacris vernaculis" (London, 1689), 420 sq. In addition there is
both a Greek and a Hebrew grammar, the last of which is known
only in some fragments: "The Greek grammar of Roger Bacon and a
fragment of his Hebrew Grammar, edited from the MSS., with an
introduction and notes", Cambridge, 1902. Some specimens of the
Greek Grammar, as preserved in a MS. of Corpus Christi College,
Oxford, had been published two years before by J. L. Heiberg in
"Byzantinische Zeitschrift", IX, 1900, 479-91. The
above-mentioned edition of the two grammars cannot be considered
very critical (see the severe criticism by Heiberg, ibid., XII,
1903, 343-47). Here we may add Bacon's "Speculum Alchemiae",
Nuremberg, 1614 (Libellus do alchimia cui titulus : Spec.
Alchem.); it was translated into French by Jacques Girard de
Tournus, under the title "Miroir d'alquimie", Lyons, 1557. Some
treatises dealing with chemistry were printed in 1620 together
in one volume containing: (1) "Breve Breviarium de dono Dei";
(2) "Verbum abbreviatum de Leone viridi"; (3) "Secretum
secretorum naturae de laude lapidis philosophorum"; (4)
"Tractatus trium verborum"; (5) "Alchimia major". But it is
possible that some of these and several other treatises
attributed to Bacon are parts of works already mentioned, as are
essays "De situ orbis", "De regionibus mundi", "De situ
Palaestinae", "De locis sacris", "Descriptiones locorum mundi",
"Summa grammaticalis" (see Golubovich, "Biblioteca
bio-bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell'Oriente Francescano",
Quaracchi, 1906, I, 268 sq.).
If we now examine Bacon's scientific systems and leading
principles, his aims and his hobby, so to say, we find that the
burden not only of the writings sent to the pope, but also of
all his writings was: ecclesiastical study must be reformed. All
his ideas and principles must be considered in the light of this
thesis. He openly exposes the "sins" of his time in the study of
theology, which are seven, as he had proved, in the "Opus
Majus". Though this part has been lost, we can reconstruct his
arrangement with the aid of the "Opus Minus" and "Opus Tertium".
The first sin is the preponderance of (speculative) philosophy.
Theology is a Divine science, hence it must be based on Divine
principles and treat questions touching Divinity, and not
exhaust itself in philosophical cavils and distinctions. The
second sin is ignorance of the sciences most suitable and
necessary to theologians; they study only Latin grammar, logic,
natural philosophy (very superficially!) and a part of
metaphysics: four sciences very unimportant, scientiae viles.
Other sciences more necessary, foreign (Oriental) languages,
mathematics, alchemy, chemistry, physics, experimental sciences,
and moral philosophy, they neglect. A third sin is the defective
knowledge of even the four sciences which they cultivate: their
ideas are full of errors and misconceptions, because they have
no means to get at the real understanding of the authors from
whom they draw all their knowledge, since their writings abound
in Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic expressions. Even the greatest and
most highly-esteemed theologians show in their works to what an
extent the evil has spread.
Another sin is the preference for the "Liber Sententiarum" and
the disregard of other theological matters, especially Holy
Scriptures; he complains: "The one who explains the 'Book of the
Sentences' is honoured by all, whereas the lector of Holy
Scripture is neglected; for to the expounder of the Sentences
there is granted a commodious hour for lecturing at his own
will, and if he belongs to an order, a companion and a special
room; whilst the lector of Holy Scripture is denied all this and
must beg the hour for his lecture to be given at the pleasure of
the expounder of the Sentences. Elsewhere the lector of the
Sentences holds disputations and is called master, whereas the
lector of the [Biblical] test is not allowed to dispute" ("Opus
Minus", ed. Brewer, 328 sq.). Such a method, he continues, is
inexplicable and very injurious to the Sacred Text which
contains the word of God, and the exposition of which would
offer many occasions to speak about matters now treated in the
several "Summae Sententiarum". Still more disastrous is the
fifth sin: the text of Holy Writ is horribly corrupted,
especially in the "exemplar Parisiense", that is to say the
Biblical text used at the University of Paris and spread by its
students over the whole world. Confusion has been increased by
many scholars or religious orders, who in their endeavours to
correct the Sacred Text, in default of a sound method, have in
reality only augmented the divergences; as every one presumes to
change anything "he does not understand, a thing he would not
dare to do with the books of the classical poets", the world is
full of "correctors or rather corruptors". The worst of all sins
is the consequence of the foregoing: the falsity or doubtfulness
of the literal sense (sensus litteralis) and consequently of the
spiritual meaning (sensus spiritualis); for when the literal
sense is wrong, the spiritual sense cannot be right, since it is
necessarily based upon the literal sense. The reasons of this
false exposition are the corruption of the sacred text and
ignorance of the Biblical languages. For how can they get the
real meaning of Holy Writ without this knowledge, as the Latin
versions are full of Greek and Hebrew idioms?
The seventh sin is the radically false method of preaching:
instead of breaking to the faithful the Bread of Life by
expounding the commandments of God and inculcating their duties,
the preachers content themselves with divisions of the arbor
Porphyriana, with the jingle of words and quibbles. They are
even ignorant of the rules of eloquence, and often prelates who
during their course of study were not instructed in preaching,
when obliged to speak in church, beg the copy-books of the
younger men, which are full of bombast and ridiculous divisions,
serving only to "stimulate the hearers to all curiosity of mind,
but do not elevate the affection towards good" ("Opus Tertium",
Brewer, 309 sq.). Exceptions are very few, as for instance Friar
Bertholdus Alemannus (Ratisbon) who alone has more effect than
all the friars of both orders combined (Friars Minor and
Preachers). Eloquence ought to be accompanied by science, and
science by eloquence; for "science without eloquence is like a
sharp sword in the hands of a paralytic, whilst eloquence
without science is a sharp sword in the hands of a furious man"
("Sapientia sine eloquentia est quasi gladius acutus in manu
paralytici, sicut eloquentia expers sapientiae est quasi gladius
acutus in manu furiosi"; "Opus Tertium, I, Brewer, 4). But far
from being an idle fault-finder who only demolished without
being able to build up, Bacon makes proposals extremely fit and
efficacious, the only failure of which was that they were never
put into general practice, by reason of the premature death of
the pope. Bacon himself and his pupils, such as John of Paris,
whom he praises highly, William of Mara, Gerard Huy, and others
are a striking argument that his proposals were no Utopian
fancies: they showed in their own persons what in their idea a
theologian should be. First of all, if one wishes to get wisdom,
he must take care not to fall into the four errors which usually
prevent even learned men from attaining the summit of wisdom,
viz. "the example of weak and unreliable authority, continuance
of custom, regard to the opinion of the unlearned, and
concealing one's own ignorance, together with the exhibition of
apparent wisdom" ("Fragilis et indignae autoritatis exemplum,
consuetudinis diuturnitas, vulgi sensus imperiti, et propriae
ignorantiae occultatio cum ostentatione sapientiae apparentis";
"Opus Majus", I, Bridges, 1, 2).
Thus having eliminated "the four general causes of all human
ignorance", one must be convinced that all science has its
source in revelation both oral and written. Holy Scripture
especially is an inexhaustible fountain of truth from which all
human philosophers, even the heathen, drew their knowledge,
immediately or mediately; therefore no science, whether profane
or sacred, can be true if contrary to Holy Writ (see "English
Hist. Rev.", 1897, 508 sq.; "Opus Tertium", XXIV, Brewer, 87
sq.). This conviction having taken root, we must consider the
means of attaining wisdom. Among those which lead to the summit
are to be mentioned in the first place the languages, Latin,
Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic. Latin does not suffice, as there are
many useful works written in other languages and not yet
translated, or badly translated, into Latin. Even in the best
versions of scientific works, as for instance of Greek and
Arabic philosophers, or of the Scriptures, as also in the
Liturgy, there are still some foreign expressions retained
purposely or by necessity, it being impossible to express in
Latin all nuances of foreign texts. It would be very interesting
to review all the other reasons adduced by Bacon proving the
advantage or even necessity of foreign languages for
ecclesiastical, social, and political purposes, or to follow his
investigations into the physiological conditions of language or
into what might have been the original one spoken by man. He
distinguishes three degrees of linguistic knowledge; theologians
are not obliged to reach the second degree, which would enable
them to translate a foreign text into their own language, or the
third one which is still more difficult of attainment and which
would enable them to speak this language as their own.
Nevertheless the difficulties of reaching even the highest
degree are not as insurmountable as is commonly supposed; it
depends only on the method followed by the master, and as there
are very few scholars who follow a sound method, it is not to be
wondered at that perfect knowledge of foreign languages is so
rarely found among theologians (see "Opus Tertium", XX, Brewer,
64 sq.; "Compendium Studii phil.", VI, Brewer, 433 sq.). On this
point, and in general of Roger's attitude towards Biblical
studies, see the present author's article "De Fr. Roger Bacon
ejusque sententia de rebus biblicis" in "Archivum Franciscanum
Historicum", III, Quaracchi, 1910, 3-22; 185-213.
Besides the languages there are other means, e.g., mathematics,
optics, the experimental sciences, and moral philosophy, the
study of which is absolutely necessary for every priest, as
Bacon shows at length. He takes special pains in applying these
sciences to Holy Scripture and the dogmas of faith. These are
pages so wonderful and evincing by their train of thought and
the drawings inserted here and there such a knowledge of the
subject matter, that we can easily understand modern scholars
saying that Bacon was born out of due time, or, with regard to
the asserted imprisonment, that he belonged to that class of men
who were crushed by the wheel of their time as they endeavoured
to set it going more quickly. It is in these treatises (and
other works of the same kind) that Bacon speaks of the
reflection of light, mirages, and burning- mirrors, of the
diameters of the celestial bodies and their distances from one
another, of their conjunction and eclipses; that he explains the
laws of ebb and flow, proves the Julian calendar to be wrong; he
explains the composition and effects of gunpowder, discusses and
affirms the possibility of steam- vessels and aerostats, of
microscopes and telescopes, and some other inventions made many
centuries later. Subsequent ages have done him more justice in
recognizing his merits in the field of natural science. John
Dee, for instance, who addressed (1582) a memorial on the
reformation of the calendar to Queen Elizabeth, speaking of
those who had advocated this change, says: "None hath done it
more earnestly, neither with better reason and skill, than hath
a subject of this British Sceptre Royal done, named as some
think David Dee of Radik, but otherwise and most commonly (upon
his name altered at the alteration of state into friarly
profession) called Roger Bacon: who at large wrote thereof
divers treatises and discourses to Pope Clement the Fifth [sic ]
about the year of our Lord, 1267. To whom he wrote and sent also
great volumes exquisitely compiled of all sciences and
singularities, philosophical and mathematical, as they might be
available to the state of Christ his Catholic Church". Dee then
remarks that Paul of Middleburg, in "Paulina de recta Paschae
celebratione", had made great use of Bacon's work: "His great
volume is more than half thereof written (though not
acknowledged) by such order and method generally and
particularly as our Roger Bacon laid out for the handling of the
matter" (cited by Bridges, "Opus Majus", I, p. xxxiv).
Longer time was needed before Bacon's merits in the field of
theological and philosophical sciences were acknowledged.
Nowadays it is impossible to speak or write about the methods
and course of lectures in ecclesiastical schools of the Middle
Ages, or on the efforts of revision and correction of the Latin
Bible made before the Council of Trent, or on the study of
Oriental languages urged by some scholars before the Council of
Vienne, without referring to the efforts made by Bacon. In our
own day, more thoroughly than at the Council of Trent, measures
are taken in accordance with Bacon's demand that the further
corruption of the Latin text of Holy Scripture should be
prevented by the pope's authority, and that the most scientific
method should be applied to the restoration of St. Jerome's
version of the Vulgate. Much may be accomplished even now by
applying Bacon's principles, viz.: (1) unity of action under
authority; (2) a thorough consultation of the most ancient
manuscripts; (3) the study of Hebrew and Greek to help where the
best Latin manuscripts left room for doubt; (4) a thorough
knowledge of Latin grammar and construction; (5) great care in
distinguishing between St. Jerome's readings and those of the
more ancient version (see "Opus Tertium", XXV, Brewer, 93 sq.;
Gasquet, "English Biblical Criticism in the Thirteenth Century"
in "The Dublin Review", CXX, 1898, 15). But there are still some
prejudices among learned men, especially with regard to Bacon's
orthodoxy and his attitude towards Scholastic philosophy. It is
true that he speaks in terms not very flattering of the
Scholastics, and even of their leaders. His style is not the
ordinary Scholastic style proceeding by inductions and
syllogisms in the strictest form; he speaks and writes fluently,
clearly expressing his thoughts as a modern scholar treating the
same subject might write. But no one who studies his works can
deny that Bacon was thoroughly trained in Scholastic philosophy.
Like the other Scholastics, he esteems Aristotle highly, while
blaming the defective Latin versions of his works and some of
his views on natural philosophy. Bacon is familiar with the
subjects under discussion, and it may be of interest to note
that in many cases he agrees with Duns Scotus against other
Scholastics, particularly regarding matter and form and the
intellectus agens which he proves not to be distinct
substantially from the intellectus possibilis ("Opus Majus", II,
V; "Opus Tertium", XXIII).
It would be difficult to find any other scholar who shows such a
profound knowledge of the Arabic philosophers as Bacon does.
Here appears the aim of his philosophical works, to make
Christian philosophy acquainted with the Arabic philosophers. He
is an enemy only of the extravagances of Scholasticism, the
subtleties and fruitless quarrels, to the neglect of matters
much more useful or necessary and the exaltation of philosophy
over theology. Far from being hostile to true philosophy, he
bestows a lavish praise on it. None could delineate more clearly
and convincingly than he, what ought to be the relation between
theology and philosophy, what profit they yield and what
services they render to each other, how true philosophy is the
best apology of Christian faith (see especially "Opus Majus", II
and VII; "Compend. studii philos."). Bacon is sometimes not very
correct in his expressions; there may even be some ideas that
are dangerous or open to suspicion (e.g. his conviction that a
real influence upon the human mind and liberty and on human fate
is exerted by the celestial bodies etc.). But there is no real
error in matters of faith, and Bacon repeatedly asks the reader
not to confound his physics with divination, his chemistry with
alchemy, his astronomy with astrology; and certainly he
submitted with all willingness his writings to the judgment of
the Church. It is moving to note the reverence he displayed for
the pope. Likewise he shows always the highest veneration
towards the Fathers of the Church; and whilst his criticism
often becomes violent when he blames the most eminent of his
contemporaries, he never speaks or writes any word of disregard
of the Fathers or ancient Doctors of the Church, even when not
approving their opinion; he esteemed them highly and had
acquired such a knowledge of their writings that he was no way
surpassed by any of his great rivals. Bacon was a faithful
scholar of open character who frankly uttered what he thought,
who was not afraid to blame whatsoever and whomsoever he
believed to deserve censure, a scholar who was in advance of his
age by centuries. His iron will surmounted all difficulties and
enabled him to acquire a knowledge so far surpassing the average
science of his age, that he must be reckoned among the most
eminent scholars of all times.
Of the vast Baconian bibliography we can mention only the most
important books and articles in so far as we have made use of
them. Besides those already cited we must mention: BALAEUS,
Script. illustr. maiorus Brytann. Catalogus (Basle, 1577);
Anecdota Oxon. Index Britannicae SS. quos . . . collegit Joan.
Balaeus, ed. POOLE AND BATESON (OXFORD, 1902----); WOOD, Hist.
et antiq. Univers. Oxon., I (Oxford, 1674); IDEM, Athenae Oxon.
(London, 1721), new ed. by BLISS (4 vols., London, 1813-20);
WHARTON, Anglia sacra (London, 1691); HODY, De Bibliorum text.
original., versionibus graec. et latina Vulgata, III (Oxford,
1705); LELANDUS, Comment. de Scriptor. Brittanicis, ed. HALL
(Oxford, 1709); OUDIN, Comment. de Script. Ecclesiae antiq., I
(Frankfort, 1722), II-III (Leipzig, 1722); WADDING-FONSECA,
Annales Ord. Min., IV-V; WADDING, Scriptores O. M. (Rome, 1650,
1806, 1906); TANNER, Bibl. Britann.-Hibern. (London, 1748);
SBARALEA, Supplement. ad SS. O. M. (Rome, 1806); BERGER, De
l'hist. de la Vulgate en France (Paris, 1887); IDEM, Quam
notitiam linguae hebr. habuerunt christiani med. aevi (Paris,
1893); cf. the criticism of this book by SOURY in Bibl. de
l'Ecole des Chartes, LIV (1893), 733-38; DENIFLE, Die Handschr.
der Bibel-Corrector. des 13. Jahrh. in Archiv f. Lit.- u.
Kirchengesch. des Mittelalters, IV, 263 sqq.; 471 sqq.; DOeRING,
Die beiden Bacon in Archiv f. Gesch. d. Philos., XVII, (1904), 3
sqq.; FERET, Les emprisonnements de R. Bacon in Revue des quest.
histor., L (1891), 119-42; IDEM, La faculte de theol. de Paris
(4 vols., Paris, 1894-96); FLUeGEL, R. Bacons Stellung in d.
Gesch. d. Philologie in Philos. Studien, XIX (1902), 164 sqq.;
HEITZ, Essai histor. sur les rapports entre la philos. et la
foi, de Berenger de Tours `a St. Thomas (Paris, 1909), 117 sqq.;
HIRSCH, Early English Hebraists: R. Bacon and his Predecessors
in The Jewish Quarterly Review (Oct., 1890), reprinted in IDEM,
A Book of Essays (London, 1905), 1-72; Hist. de la France, XX
(Paris, 1842), 227 sqq.; HOFFMANS, La synthese doctrinale de R.
B. in Archiv f.Gesch. d. Philos. (Berne, 1907); IDEM,
L'intuition mystique de la science in Revue Neo-Scholastuque
(1909), 370 sqq. (cf. 1906, 371 sqq.; 1908, 474 sqq.; 1909, 33
sqq.); JARRETT, A Thirteenth-Century Revision Committee of the
Bible in Irish Theological Quarterly, IV (Maynooth, 1910), 56
sqq.; JOURDAIN, Discussion de quelques points de la biogr. de R.
B. in Comptes rendus Acad. Inscr. et Belles-Lettres, I (1873),
309 sqq.; KREMBS, R. B.'s Optik in Natur u. Offenbarung (1900);
LANGEN, R. Bacon in Histor. Zeitschr., LI (1883), 434-50;
MARTIN, La Vulgate latine au XIIIe siecle d'apres R. B. (Paris,
1888); Mon. Germ. Hist.: SS., XXVIII, 569 sqq.; NARBEY, Le moine
R. B. et le mouvement scientifque au XIIIe siecle in Revue des
quest. histor., XXXV (1894), 115 sqq.; PARROT, R. B., sa
personne, son genie, etc. (Paris, 1894); PESCH, De inspiratione
S. Scripturae (Freiburg, 1906), 163 sq.; PICAVET, Les editions
de R. B. in Journal des Savants (1905), 362-69; IDEM, Deux
directions de la theol. et de l'exegese au XIIIe siecle. Thomas
et Bacon in Revue de l'hist. des religions (1905), 172, or
printed separately (Paris, 1905); POHL, Das Verhaeltnis der
Philos. zur Theol. bei R. B. (Neustrelitz, 1893); SAISSET, R.
B., sa vie et son oeuvre in Revue des deux mondes, XXXIV,
(1861), 361-91; IDEM, Precurseurs et disciples de Descartes
(Paris, 1862); SALEMBIER, Une page inedite de l'hist. de la
Vulgate (Amiens, 1890); SCHNEIDER, R. B., eine Monographie als
Beitrag zur Gesch der Philos. des 13. Jahr. aus den Quellen
(Augsburg, 1873); SIEBERT, R. B., sein Leben u. seine Philos.
(Marburg, 1861); STARHAHN, Das opus maius des R. B. nach seinem
Inhalt u. seiner Bebeutung f. d. Wissenschaft betrachtet in
Kirchl. Monatsschr., XII (1893), 276-86; STRUNZ, Gesch. der
Naturwissenschaften im Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1910), 93-99;
UBALD, Franciscan England in the Past in Franciscan Annals,
XXXIII (1908), 369-71; XXXIV, (1909), 11-14; VALDARNINI,
Esperienza e ragionamento in R. B. (Rome, 1896); VERCELLONE,
Dissertazioni accademiche di vario argumento (Rome, 1864); VOGL,
Die Physik R. B.'s (Erlangen, 1906); WERNER, Kosmologie u.
allgem. Naturlehre R. B.'s Psychol., Erkenntniss- u.
Wissenschaftslehre des R. B. in Sitzungsber. der k. k. Akad. d.
W., XCIII (Vienna), 467-576; XCIV, 489-612; WITHEFORD, Bacon as
an Interpreter of Holy Scripture inExpositor (1897), 349-60;
WULF, (DE), Hist. de la philos. medievale (2nd ed., Louvain,
1905), 419-27.
THEOPHILUS WITZEL
Ven. Roger Cadwallador
Ven. Roger Cadwallador
English martyr, b. at Stretton Sugwas, near Hereford, in 1568;
executed at Leominster, 27 Aug., 1610. He was ordained subdeacon
at Reims, 21 Sept., 1591, and deacon the following February, and
in Aug., 1592, was sent to the English College at Valladolid,
where he was ordained priest. Returning to England in 1594, he
laboured in Herefordshire with good success especially among the
poor for about sixteen years. Search was made for him in June,
1605, but it was not till Easter, 1610, that he was arrested at
the house of Mrs. Winefride Scroope, widow, within eight miles
of Hereford. He was then brought before the Bishop, Dr. Robert
Bennet, who committed him to Hereford gaol where he was loaded
with irons night and day. On being transferred to Leominster
gaol he was obliged to walk all the way in shackles, though a
boy was permitted to go by his side and bear up by a string the
weight of some iron links which were wired to the shackles. On
his arrival, he was treated with the greatest inhumanity by his
gaoler. He was condemned, merely for being a priest, some months
before he suffered. A very full account of his sufferings in
prison and of his martyrdom is given by Challoner. He hung very
long, suffering great pain, owing to the unskilfulness of the
hangman, and was eventually cut down and butchered alive. Pits
praises his great knowledge of Greek, from which he translated
Theodoret's "Philotheus, or the lives of the Father of the
Syrian deserts"; but it does not appear when or where this
translation was published.
JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT
Roger of Hoveden
Roger of Hoveden
Chronicler, was probably a native of Hoveden, or, as it is now
called, Howden, in Yorkshire. From the fact that his chronicle
ends rather abruptly in 1201 it is inferred that he must have
died or been stricken with some mortal disease in that year. He
was certainly a man of importance in his day. He was a king's
clerk (clericus regis) in the time of Henry II, and seems to
have been attached to the court as early as 1173, while he was
also despatched on confidential missions, as for example to the
chiefs of Galloway in 1174. In 1189 he served as an itinerant
justice in the north, but he probably retired from public life
after the death of Henry II, and it has been suggested that he
became parish priest of his native village, Howden, devoting the
rest of his life to the compilation of his chronicle. Like most
other historical writings of that date the earlier portion of
his work is little more than a transcript of some one narrative
to which he had more convenient access or which he considered
specially worthy of confidence. His authority from 732 down to
1154 was an abstract, still extant in manuscript, "Historia
Saxonum vel Anglorum post obituary Bedae". From 1154 to 1192 he
uses his authorities much more freely, basing his narrative upon
the well-known "Gesta Henrici", commonly attributed to Benedict
of Peterborough. But from 1192 to 1201 his work is all his own,
and of the highest value. Hoveden had a great appreciation of
the importance of documentary evidence, and we should be very
ill informed regarding the political history of the last quarter
of the twelfth century if it were not for the state papers,
etc., which Hoveden inserts and of which, no doubt, his earlier
connection with the chancery and its officials enabled him to
obtain copies.
As a chronicler, he was impartial and accurate. His profoundly
religious character made him somewhat credulous, but there is no
reason, as even his editor, Bishop Stubbs, admits, to regard him
on that account as an untrustworthy authority.
The one reliable edition of Hoveden is that prepared by STUBBS
for the Rolls Series in four vols., 1868-71. A full account of
Hoveden and his works is, given in the preface to these vols.
HERBERT THURSTON
Roger of Wendover
Roger of Wendover
Benedictine monk, date of birth unknown; d. 1236, the first of
the great chroniclers of St. Albans Abbey. He seems to have been
a native of Wendover in Buckinghamshire and must have enjoyed
some little consideration among his brethren as he was appointed
prior of the cell of Belvoir, but from this office he was
deposed and retired to St. Albans, where he probably wrote his
chronicle, known as the "Flores Historiarum", extending from the
Creation to 1235. From the year 1202 it is an original and
valuable authority, but the whole material has been worked over
and in a sense re-edited with editions by Matthew Paris (q.v.)
in his "Chronica Majora". Wendover is less prejudiced than
Paris, but he is also less picturesque, and whereas Paris in his
generalizations and inferences as to the causes of events
anticipates the scope of the modern historian, Wendover is
content to discharge the functions of a simple chronicler. The
"Flores Historiarum" was edited for the English Historical
Society in 1841 by H. O. Coxe in five volumes, beginning with
the year 447, when Wendover for the first time turns directly to
the history of Britain. But in 1886-1889 the more valuable part
of the work (from 1154 to 1235) was re-edited by H. G. Hewlett
as part of the Rolls Series in three volumes.
HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. WENDOVER; LUARD, prefaces to the
earlier volumes of MATTHEW PARIS, Chronica Majora in the Rolls
Series; HARDY, Catalogue of Materials of Brit. Hist., III
(London, 1871), and the prefaces to the editions of Flores
Historiarum.
HERBERT THURSTON
Peter Roh
Peter Roh
Born at Conthey (Gunthis) in the canton of Valais (French
Switzerland), 14 August, 1811; d. at Bonn, 17 May, 1872. Up to
his thirteenth year he spoke only French, so that he had to
learn German from a German priest in the vicinity before he was
able to begin his gymnasial studies in the boarding-school kept
by the Jesuits at Brig in Switzerland. Later he became a
day-pupil at the gymnasium kept by the Jesuits at Sittin. While
here he resolved to enter the Society of Jesus (1829); strange
to say the external means of bringing him to this decision was
the reading of Pascal's pamphlet "Monita Secreta". He taught the
lower gymnasial classes at the lyceum at Fribourg. During these
years of study Roh showed two characteristic qualities: the
talent of imparting knowledge in a clear and convincing manner,
and an unusual gift for oratory. These abilities determined his
future work to be that of a teacher and a preacher. He was first
(1842-5) professor of dogmatics at Fribourg, then at the academy
at Lucerne which had just been given to the Jesuits. At the same
time he preached and aided as opportunity occurred in missions.
These labors were interrupted by the breaking out of the war of
the Swiss Sonderbund, during which he was military chaplain; but
after its unfortunate end he was obliged to flee into Piedmont,
from there to Linz and Gries, finally finding a safe refuge at
Rappoltsweiler in Alsace as tutor in the family of his
countryman and friend Siegwart-Mueller, also expatriated. Here
he stayed until 1849. A professorship of dogmatics at Louvain
only lasted a year. When the missions for the common people were
opened in Germany in 1850 his real labors began; as he said
himself, "Praise God, I now come into my element." Both friend
and foe acknowledge that the success of these missions was
largely due to Roh, and his powerful and homely eloquence
received the highest praise. He was an extemporaneous speaker;
the writing of sermons and addresses was, as he himself
confessed, "simply impossible" to him; yet, thoroughly trained
in philosophy and theology, he could also write when necessary,
as several articles from him in the "Stimmen aus Maria-Laach"
prove. His pamphlet "Das alte Lied: der Zweck heiligt die
Mittel, im Texte verbessert und auf neue Melodie gesetzt" has
preserved a certain reputation until the present day, as Father
Roh declared he would give a thousand gulden to the person who
could show to the faculty of law of Bonn or Heidelberg a book
written by a Jesuit which taught the principle that the end
justifies the means. The prize is still unclaimed. Some of his
sermons have also been preserved; they were printed against his
will from stenographic notes. Father Roh's greatest strength lay
in his power of speech and "he was the most powerful and
effective preacher of the German tongue that the Jesuits have
had in this century".
KNABENBAUER, Erinnerungen an P. Peter Roh S. J., reprint of the
biography in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (1872).
N. SCHEID
Rohault de Fleury
Rohault de Fleury
A family of French architects and archaeologists of the
nineteenth century, of which the most distinguished member was
Charles Rohault de Fleury, b. in Paris 23 July, 1801; d. there
11 August, 1875. After a scientific course pursued at the Ecole
Polytechnique at Paris, he studied sculpture, but abandoned this
study for architecture in 1825. He designed several public and
private buildings which adorn one of the most artistic sections
of the present Paris and was the author of the first edition of
the "Manuel des lois du batiment" published by the Central
Society of Architects (Paris, 1862). The last years of his life
he devoted to religious archaeology and published the important
results of his studies in the following magnificently
illustrated works: "Les instruments de la Passion", Paris, 1870
(see CROSS, IV, 531); "L'evangile, etudes iconographiques et
archeologiques", Tours, 1874; "La Sainte Vierge", Paris, 1878;
"Un Tabernacle chretien du Ve siecle", Arras, 1880; "La Messe,
etudes archeologiques sur ses monuments", Paris, 1883-98. Some
of these works were published after his death by his son George
(1835-1905) who was himself a prominent archaeological writer.
The latter's works treat of Italian art-monuments: "Monuments de
Pise au moyen age", Paris, 1866; "La Toscane au moyen age,
lettres sur l'architecture civile et militaire en 1400", Paris
1874; "Le Latran au moyen age", Paris 1877.
Oeuvres de Charles Rohault de Fleury, architecte (Paris, 1884).
N.A. WEBER
Rene Francois Rohrbacher
Rene Franc,ois Rohrbacher
Ecclesiastical historian, b. at Langatte (Langd) in the present
Diocese of Metz, 27 September, 1789; d. in Paris, 17 January,
1856. He studied for several months at Sarrebourg and
Phalsebourg (Pfalzburg) and at the age of seventeen had
completed his Classical studies. He taught for three years at
the college of Phalsebourg; entered in 1810 the ecclesiastical
seminary at Nancy, and was ordained priest in 1812. Appointed
assistant priest at Insming, he was transferred after six months
to Luneville. A mission which he preached in 1821 at Flavigny
led to the organization of a diocesan mission band. Several
years later he became a member of the Congregation of St. Peter
founded by Felicite and Jean de La Mennais, and from 1827 to
1835 directed the philosophical and theological studies of young
ecclesiastics who wished to become the assistants of the two
brothers in their religious undertakings. When Felicite de La
Mennais refused to submit to the condemnation pronounced against
him by Rome, Rohrbacher separated from him and became professor
of Church history at the ecclesiastical seminary of Nancy. Later
he retired to Paris where he spent the last years of his life.
His principal work is his monumental "Histoire Universelle de
l'Eglise Catholique" (Nancy, 1842-49; 2nd ed., Paris, 1849-53).
Several other editions were subsequently published and
continuations added by Chantrel and Guillaume. Written from an
apologetic point of view, the work contributed enormously to the
extirpation of Gallicanism in the Church of France. Though at
times uncritical and devoid of literary grace, it is of
considerable usefulness to the student of history. It was
translated into German and partially recast by Huelskamp, Rump,
and numerous other writers. (For the other works of Rohrbacher,
see Hurter, "Nomenclator Lit.", III [Innsbruck, 1895], 1069-71.)
ROHRBACHER, Hist. Univ. de l'Eglise Cath., ed. by GUILLAUME XII,
(Paris, 1885), 122-33; MCCAFFREY, Hist. of the Cath. Ch. in the
XIX Century, II (Dublin, 1909), I, 60, II, 448, 475.
N.A. WEBER
Francisco de Rojas y Zorrilla
Francisco de Rojas y Zorrilla
Spanish dramatic poet, b. at Toledo, 4 Oct., 1607; d. 1680.
Authentic information regarding the events of his life is rather
fragmentary, but he probably studied at the Universities of
Toledo and Salamanca, and for a time followed a military career.
When only twenty-five he was well known as a poet, for he is
highly spoken of in Montalban's "Para todos" (1632), a fact
which shows that he enjoyed popularity, when Lope de Vega, Tirso
de Molina, and Calderon were in the height of their fame. The
announcement published in 1638 of the assassination of Francisco
de Rojas did not refer to the poet, for the first and second
parts of his comedies, published by himself at Madrid, bear the
dates of 1640 and 1645 respectively. A third part was promised
but it never appeared. He was given the mantle of the Order of
Santiago in 1644. The writings of Rojas consist of plays and
autos sacramentales written alone and in collaboration with
Calderon, Coello, Velez, Montalban, and others. No complete
edition of his plays is available, but Mesonero gives a very
good selection with biographical notes. Among the best of them
are "Del Rey abajo ninguno", "Entre bobos anda el juego", "Donde
hay agravio no hay celos", and "Casarse por vengarse", the last
of which is claimed to have been the basis of Le Sage's novel,
"Gil Blas de Santillane".
TICKNOR, History of Spanish Literature (Boston, 1866); MESONERO,
Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, LIV (Madrid, 1866).
VENTURA FUENTES
John Gage Rokewode
John Gage Rokewode
Born 13 Sept., 1786; died at Claughton Hall, Lancashire, 14
Oct., 1842. He was the fourth son of Sir Thomas Gage of
Hengrave, and took the name Rokewode in 1838 when he succeeded
to the Rokewode estates. He was educated at Stonyhurst, and
having studied law under Charles Butler he was called to the
bar, but never practiced, preferring to devote himself to
antiquarian pursuits. He was elected a fellow of the Society of
Antiquaries in 1818, and was director from 1829 till 1842. He
also became a fellow of the Royal Society. In 1822 he published
"The History and Antiquities of Hengrave in Suffolk" and in 1838
" The History and Antiquities of Suffolk ". His edition of
Jocelin de Brakelond's chronicle published by the Camden Society
in 1840 furnished Carlyle with much of his materials for "Past
and Present" (1843). Many papers by him appeared in
"Archaeologia", many of these being republished as separate
pamphlets, including the description of the Benedictionals of
St. AEthelwold and of Robert of Jumieges; he also printed the
genealogy of the Rokewode family with charters relating thereto
in "Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica", II. He contributed
to the "Orthodox Journal" and the "Catholic Gentleman's
Magazine". Many of his MSS. were sold after his death with his
valuable library. The Society of Antiquaries possess a bust of
him by R.C. Lucas. He died suddenly while out shooting.
Orthodox Journal, XV, 276; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog. GILLOW,
Bibl. Dict. Eng. Caths.
EDWIN BURTON
Rolduc
Rolduc
(RODA DUCIS, also Roda, Closterroda or Hertogenrade).
Located in S. E. Limburg, Netherlands. It became an Augustinian
abbey in 1104 under Ven. Ailbertus, a priest, son of Ammoricus,
a nobleman of Antoing, Flanders. Ailbertus is said to have been
guided by a vision towards this chosen spot, which was in the
domain of Count Adelbert of Saffenberch, who, before Bishop
Othert of Liege, turned over the property destined for abbey and
church in 1108. Ailbertus was the first abbot (1104-11). Later
he went to France where he founded the Abbey of Clairfontaine.
Desiring once more to see Rolduc, he died on the way, at
Sechtem, near Bonn, 19 Sep., 1122 (Acta SS.). Thirty-eight
abbots succeeded Ailbertus, the last one being Peter Joseph
Chaineux (1779-1800). The abbey acquired many possessions in the
Netherlands, and became the last resting-place of the Dukes of
Limburg. It possesses the famous "Catalogue Librorum", made A.D.
1230, containing one hundred and forty theological and
eighty-six philosophical and classical works. The beautiful
crypt, built by Ailbertus, was blessed 13 Dec., 1106, and in
1108 the church was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin and St
Gabriel. In 1122 Pope Calixtus II confirmed by a Bull, preserved
in the archives of Rolduc, the donation of the property. The
church, completed in 1209, was then solemnly dedicated by
Philip, Bishop of Ratzeburg. Dr. R. Corten completed the
restoration of the churoh in 1893, and transferred the relics of
Ven. Ailbertus into a richly sculptured sarcophagus in the
crypt, 1897. The church possesses a particle of the Holy Cross,
five inches long, reputed to be authentic and miraculous
(Archives of Rolduc, by Abbot Mathias Amezaga); also the body of
St. Daphne, virgin and martyr, brought over from the Catacombs
of Praetextatus in 1847. Rolduc became the seminary of Liege in
1831, under Right Rev. Cornelius Van Bommel, and the little
seminary of Roermond, and academy in 1841. The present
institution has an attendance of 420 pupils.
HEYENDAL, Annales Rodenses usque ad annum 1700; Diarium rerum
memorabilium abbatiae Rodensis in the archives of
Aix-la-Chapelle; Acta SS.; HABETS, Geschiedenis van het Bisdom
Roermond, III (1875-92); ERNST, Histoire du Limbourg, (Liege,
1837-52); DARIS, Notice Historique sur les eglises du diocese de
Liege, XV (Liege, 1894); NEUJEAN, Notice historique sur l'abbaye
de Rolduc (Aix-la-Chapelle, 1868); HELYOT, Histoire des ordres
monastiques, religieux et militaires, II (Paris, 1714-19);
CUYPERS, Revue de l'art chretien (1892); LENNARTZ, Die
Augustiner Abtei Klosterrath; KERSTEN, Journal Historique et
Litteraire, XIV (Liege); CORTEN, Rolduc in Woord en Beeld
(Utrecht, 1902).
THEOPHILE STENMANS
Hermann Rolfus
Hermann Rolfus
Catholic educationist, b. at Freiburg, 24 May, 1821; d. at Buhl,
near Offenburg, 27 October, 1896. After attending the gymnasium
at Freiburg, he studied theology and philology at the university
there from 1840 to 1843, and was ordained priest on 31 August,
1844. After he had served for brief periods at various places,
he was appointed curate at Thiengen in 1851, curate-in-charge at
Reiselfingen in 1855, parish priest at the last named place in
1861, parish priest at Reuthe near Freiburg in 1867 at Sasbach
in 1875, and at Buhl in 1892. In 1867 the theological faculty at
Freiburg gave him the degree of Doctor of Theology. Rolfus did
much for practical Catholic pedagogics, especially in southern
Germany, by the work which he edited in conjunction with Adolf
Pfister, "Real-Encyclopaedie des Erziehungsund Unterrichtswesens
nach katholischen Principien" (4 vols., Mainz, 1863-1866; 2nd.
ed. 1872-74). A fifth volume ("Ergaenzungsband", 1884) was
issued by Rolfus alone; a new edition is in course of
preparation. Another influential publication was the
"Suddeutsches katholisches Schulwochenblatt", which he edited,
also jointly with Pfister, from 1861 to 1867. Of his other
literary works, the following may be mentioned: "Der Grund des
katholischen Glaubens" (Mainz, 1862); "Leitfaden der allgemeinen
Weltgeschichte" (Freiburg, 1870; 4th ed., 1896); "Die Galubens-
und Sittenlehre der katholischen Kirche" (Einsiedeln, 1875;
frequently re-edited), jointly with F. J. Braendle;
"Kirchengeschichtliches in chronologischer Reihenfolge von der
Zeit des letzten Vaticanischen Concils bis auf unsere Tage" (2
vols., Mainz, 1877-82; 3rd vol. by Sickinger, 1882); "Geschichte
des Reiches Gottes auf Erden" (Freiburg, 1878-80; 3rd. ed.,
1894-95); "Katholischer Hauskatechismus" (Emsiedeln, 1891-92).
In addition to the works mentioned, he also wrote a large number
of pedagogic, political, apologetic, and polemical brochures,
ascetic treatises, and works for the young.
KELLER, Festschrift zum funfzigjahrigen Priesterjubilaum, des
hochw. Herrn. Pfarrers u. Geistl. Rats Dr. Hermann Rolfus
(Freiburg, im Br., 1894), with prortrait; KNECHT in Badische
Biographien, V (Heidelberg, 1906), 670 sq.
FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT
Richard Rolle de Hampole
Richard Rolle de Hampole
Solitary and writer, b. at Thornton, Yorkshire, about 1300; d.
at Hampole, 29 Sept., 1349. The date 1290, sometimes assigned
for his birth-year, is too early, as in a work written after
1326 he alludes to himself as "juvenculus" and "puer", words
applicable to a man of under thirty, but not to one over that
age. He showed such promise as a school-boy, while living with
his father William Rolle, that Thomas de Neville, Archdeacon of
Durham, undertook to defray the cost of his education at Oxford.
At the age of nineteen he left the university to devote himself
to a life of perfection, not desiring to enter any religious
order, but with the intention of becoming a hermit. At first he
dwelt in a wood near his home, but fearing his family would put
him under restraint, he fled from Thornton and wandered about
till he was recognized by John de Dalton, who had been his
fellow student at Oxford, and who now provided him with a cell
and the necessaries for a hermit's life. At Dalton he made great
progress in the spiritual life as described by himself in his
treatise "De incendio amoris". He spent from three to four years
i